Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Supreme Court: Accomplice Aggravating Factors Require Knowledge Informing the Factor

State v. Hayes

This is a case all about sentencing aggravators. For those that follow this blog, you know that sentences can be adjusted one way or another pursuant to a series of aggravating and mitigating factors that apply in certain situations. These are all governed by statute. 

In this case, Hayes was charged with quite a few things, including leading organized crime, identity theft, possession of stolen property, possession of stolen vehicles, and (no surprise here) possession of meth. On the identity theft charge, the trial court gave an instruction on an aggravating factor regarding ‘major economic offense’: 

The trial court also instructed the jury that to find the count was a major economic offense, the jury had to find at least one of two factors beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the crime involved multiple victims or multiple incidents per victim or (2) the crime involved a high degree of sophistication or planning or occurred over a lengthy period of time. 

Now, some of these offenses were based on accomplice liability. So back in the day, the code specifically said that accomplices were punished the same as the main person doing the crime. It used the language “every person concerned in the commission of a felony . . . is a principal, and shall be proceeded against and punished as such.” The “and punished as such” language was removed in 1975, thus allowing discretion with the trial court judge.

Now, the Court has held that an aggravator for an accomplice can only be applied if the statute allowing the aggravator specifically says it applies to accomplices. Here’s the interesting part, the supreme court acknowledged that its cases had allowed exceptional sentences absent express language before, but is diverting in this case. So how much are they diverting?

Turns out not much. What they are actually saying is to apply the aggravating factor to the accomplice absent the language, you have to look to what role the accomplice played. An accomplice can’t get an aggravating factor for deadly weapon if they didn’t use a deadly weapon personally, because there was no accomplice language in the aggravating factor, “any sentence enhancement must depend on the accused’s misconduct.” McKim, 98 Wn.2d 111, 653 P.2d 1040 (1982). But even there, the court stretched it to include not just the accomplice being armed, but having knowledge the other person was armed. This has also been applied to drug free zone enhancements, where the accomplice didn’t do anything in a drug free zone.

So basically, for an aggravating factor, knowledge regarding the factor is the standard. If the accomplice knew, for example, that this was being committed against a bunch of people, then the factor would apply. 

We cannot tell from the jury's special verdict if it found that Hayes had any knowledge that informs the aggravating factors for a major economic offense, such as whether he knew the offense would involve multiple victims or would involve a high degree of sophistication. The jury was instructed on two factors phrased in relation to "the current offense," not in relation to "the defendant." In essence, the aggravating factors and special verdict form asked the jury about the nature of the offense, not about Hayes's role in it. It is this critical question that the jury's special verdict does not answer. Without a finding of knowledge that indicates that the jury found the aggravating factors on the basis of Hayes's own conduct, they cannot apply to Hayes. Because we cannot determine from the jury findings whether the exceptional sentence was based improperly on automatic liability for the offense, we vacate his exceptional sentence. 

While the lawyers at Issaquah Legal Services do not currently practice criminal law, we expect to add an Issaquah Attorney practicing in the area soon. In the meantime, please contact us for a referral to other qualified attorneys.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.