|
Ruling clarifies beating law
State high court decision opens way for hundreds to
appeal convictions
KAREN HUCKS; The News Tribune
Last updated:
November 20th, 2004 08:00 AM (PST) Two years ago,
the Washington State Supreme Court effectively overturned a decades-old
state law that said if you beat someone to death – even if you don’t mean
for the person to die – it’s murder.
In a ruling this week, the court cleared up confusion and made it clear
that its 2002 decision dates back to 1976.
The new ruling clears the way for at least 250 prisoners to have their
sentences or convictions overturned.
In a unanimous opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen said 13 men – one of
them from Pierce County – were convicted of a crime that didn’t exist.
“Where a defendant is convicted of a nonexistent crime, the judgment
and sentence is invalid on its face,” Madsen wrote in a decision in the
case of Pierce County resident Jesse Hinton.
The decision means anyone convicted of second-degree felony murder
between 1976, when the law was written, and 2003, when lawmakers rewrote
it, likely can win a new trial or sentence.
Even people who have finished their sentences might be able to end
their community supervision early.
Defense attorneys said the ruling means many people will get sentences
that better fit their crimes. Prosecutors said it meant people convicted
of killings during vicious beatings could be released sooner than they
deserve.
“The part that upsets me is the complete focus on offender rights,
without considering the full impact on victims and the safety of
communities,” Pierce County Prosecutor Gerry Horne said. “What the hell
happened to victims’ rights? They didn’t like the law so they changed it,
and it’s not their province to change laws.”
David Zuckerman, one of the defense attorneys in the Hinton case, said
that “what this decision means is that the punishment is going to fit the
crime. There are prisoners who are currently serving sentences equivalent
to those of intentional murder when they’re guilty of manslaughter.”
Since Washington became a state, there had been laws saying someone who
killed another person during an assault was guilty of murder.
Before 2003, the last writing of the law was in 1976 and said the
killing must have taken place “in furtherance of” an assault, robbery or
arson.
That phrase caught the Supreme Court’s attention.
In its 5-4 decision in October 2002, in the case of Shawn Andress of
King County, the court said that assault was too closely related to murder
for the killing to have been committed “in furtherance of” the assault.
The court said 1970s lawmakers couldn’t have meant the law the way it
had been interpreted for decades.
In 2003, lawmakers hurriedly restored the law, passing a bill that says
anyone who commits an assault that results in the victim’s death is guilty
of second-degree murder.
So, people can again be convicted of second-degree felony murder. But
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision said the 2003 law couldn’t be applied
retroactively.
Jim Nagle, president of the Washington Association of Prosecuting
Attorneys, estimated the latest ruling could affect at least 250
cases.
In Pierce County, prosecutors know of at least 10 cases in which
defendants are asking higher courts to re-examine their cases in light of
the change.
One is Peter Lindahl, who pleaded guilty to stabbing his girlfriend,
Sheri Wolf, in 2000. Others are Carissa Marie Daniels, convicted of
killing her 2-month-old baby, Damon, in 2000, and Omar Shepherd, convicted
in the May 2001 stomping death of Thomas Flanick near the Tacoma Dome.
There could be others, deputy prosecutor Kit Proctor said.
Some offenders who could ask the court to re-evaluate their cases might
decide not to because they could end up with longer sentences.
If someone had originally been charged with a more serious crime but
pleaded guilty to second-degree felony murder, reopening the case could
allow prosecutors to file the more serious charge again.
Jack Hill, the head of Pierce County’s Department of Assigned Counsel,
said it could be hard for some people to decide whether to petition the
courts for help.
And the law says they’re not entitled to an attorney until they’ve
already asked the court for help and been granted a hearing.
“It’s hard to say what the reaction will be,” Hill said. “It’s hard for
a person to know whether they should bring it or not without the advice of
counsel. Some people would be ill-advised to bring it.”
Originally published: November 20th, 2004 12:01 AM
(PST) | 
4204879p-3998231c.html&s=800x600&c=16&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=800&bh=407&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]