Zuanich Law Newsletter
Episode #20: The Yang Episode
Our 1 week hiatus from the 2020 Political Candidates Competition is over, and not a moment too soon.
The way the Democratic race is going, this competition is going to get shorter, or longer, or shorter, or longer, or maybe both. In any event, it’s damn exciting—both the race and the newsletter, obviously.
Like the political campaign, the newsletter has drama and fun and excitement, and not necessarily but definitely in that order.
The Booker Episode Winners
The winning phrase was Rhodes Scholar, because Booker was a Rhodes Scholar before entering NJ politics.
The winners:
1. Megan Dunn
2. Julie Levitt-Guren
3. Jessica Giner
4. Harry Steinmetz
This week’s candidate is Andrew Yang.
The Competition Rules
We’ve had several new subscribers the past couple weeks, who are probably wondering: “WTF is this competition, and dammit, I want to start winning. I am a lawyer, after all.”
Well, you’re in luck.
The rules:
1. Each episode is named after a candidate
2. Buried within each episode is a word or phrase associated with the candidate in some way
3. You guess right, you get a point.
4. You guess wrong, you lose your bar license.
5. The first 5 correct guesses win. The people who are late … no soup for you.
6. New Twist … For the newbie members, who need a chance to catch up, from this point forward, each correct guess nets 3 POINTS instead of 1 POINT.
I know, it’s getting crazy up in here.
State v. Pry & Davis & Cruz
Washington Supreme Court
November 21, 2019
Due Process / Criminal Complaint
Facts: Pry and his gang of fellow criminals tied up, beat up, and killed an old man. Cruz provided help, but didn’t participate in the actual killing. State charged Cruz with first degree rendering criminal assistance under RCW 9A.76.050 and jury convicted him.
Cruz argued on appeal that the charging document was insufficient because didn’t provide the requisite language in subsection 0.070, which describes the types of rendering criminal assistance.
Holding: Conviction overturned. Case centered on dispute as to whether the elements of RCW 9A.76.070 were actually elements (Cruz’ view) or merely definitional (State’s views). Subsection 070 says you can render criminal assistance by doing various things like concealing evidence, providing weapons, or harboring a suspect.
The Supremes (with a strong dissent) agreed with Cruz. 070 describes essential elements, not just definitions. The State’s complaint basically just alleged that Cruz rendered criminal assistance, but without the other language in 070, the complaint basically said that Cruz rendered criminal assistance by … well .. rendering criminal assistance. This tautology isn’t good enough, the Court said.
State also argued that the PC affidavit provided with the complaint provided Cruz with the requisite notice, but PC affidavit can’t cure a constitutionally defective complaint.
And because prejudice is presumed if essential elements aren’t there, that was good enough for Cruz.
My take: I find cases about criminal complaints and due process weirdly extremely boring and also really exciting (sort of like this newsletter, minus the boring part). I see both sides. I think both have some merit. Good case for practitioners. Good survey of and application of essential elements test.
State v. Ackerman
Court of Appeals (Division 1)
December 2, 2019
Facts: Ackerman drove to Rogers’ house to sell heroin to her (I mean, obviously). They did drugs in the car and Ackerman fell asleep in the car. Ackerman testified that Osborne came up to him, pointed a gun at him, demanded whatever he had, so Ackerman shot him self-defense
(The State disagreed slightly … and by slightly I mean slightly massively … with Ackerman’s version).
Ackerman argued justifiable homicide and the trial judge provided the WPIC 16.03 on justifiable homicide to the jury --- but with a twist. WPIC 16.03 basically says you can kill someone when you’re actually resisting a felony (reasonable person standard applies).
The judge added an element: Ackerman had to reasonably believe that a “violent felony” threatened “imminent danger” or “death” or “great personal injury.” The judge also instructed the jury that robber is a “felony.”
Two big problems, the Court said. First, saying robbery is a felony could imply to the jury that a robbery MAY not provide a basis for justifiable homicide if it didn’t involve violence (not the law).
Second, in Washington, if you’re resisting a felony, it doesn’t necessarily have to involve threats of imminent danger, etc. But the trial judge’s instruction said that it did (also wrong). Ackerman wins.
My take: For pro tem judges and judges, mess and tinker with the WPICs at your peril.
Bored in Court?: Check out my past newsletters.
About Us: Zuanich Law focuses on criminal appeals and post-conviction relief. We also handle civil appeals, family law appeals, personal injury law, business litigation, and general civil litigation.
|
|
|
|
