A Washington appeals court has affirmed a firearm conviction and sentence for a SeaTac man, ruling that his prior nonviolent drug offense legally bars him from possessing a weapon.
In a unanimous decision issued on October 12, the Division I panel of the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's judgment. The ruling rejected arguments concerning the charging documents, jury instructions, and two denied requests for a mistrial. The court also upheld the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in the sentencing calculation.
A jury convicted the man of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm on May 16, 2024. He was subsequently sentenced to a drug offender sentencing alternative totaling 47.5 months, consisting of 23.75 months of confinement and 23.75 months of community custody.
Court documents indicate the investigation began on February 14, 2021, after a woman reported that the defendant had assaulted her and threatened her with a firearm while they were staying at the Rodeway Inn in SeaTac.
Three days later, on February 17, a King County sheriff’s detective observed the defendant leaving the motel in a Cadillac with the woman as a passenger. When officers initiated a traffic stop, the defendant repeatedly lowered his hands toward the driver’s seat despite verbal commands to keep them raised. Upon exiting the vehicle, police discovered a loaded, operable pistol on the seat.
During trial, the defense argued that the defendant did not possess the weapon and that the woman had planted it to avoid being charged herself. The defense noted that a no-contact order protecting the defendant prohibited her from possessing a weapon.
The appeals court upheld the conviction, citing officer testimony that no movements were observed suggesting the woman placed the gun under the defendant. The panel described the evidence supporting the firearm conviction as overwhelming.
The defendant had stipulated to a prior conviction for cocaine delivery, acknowledging it as a "serious offense" under state firearm laws. He also admitted to receiving both written and oral notice that he was prohibited from possessing or controlling a firearm.
In rejecting the Second Amendment challenge, the panel relied on established Washington appellate precedents regarding firearm restrictions for individuals with felony convictions. The court noted that those precedents do not distinguish between violent and nonviolent felonies. The court declined to address arguments regarding the constitutionality of restrictions based on juvenile adjudications, noting a lack of supporting legal citations.
The defendant challenged specific lines of questioning directed at the woman during the trial. One line of inquiry concerned visits from his family members to her home after the trial began, while another concerned her residence in YWCA housing for domestic violence victims.
The trial court determined the evidence was more prejudicial than probative but denied motions for a mistrial. The defendant argued that the questions implied witness intimidation and improperly bolstered the woman's credibility.
The appeals court noted that the woman did not testify that the defendant sent his relatives or explain the reasons for their visits. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court instructed jurors to disregard the housing testimony, and the defendant had not objected to her earlier testimony identifying herself as a domestic violence victim.
The panel also rejected the claim that the charging document and jury instruction omitted a required element regarding knowledge of the disqualifying conviction.
A state appellate panel has determined that under Washington law, prosecutors are required to establish that a defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and had a specific prior conviction, but they do not need to prove the defendant was aware of that previous record.
The court addressed sentencing arguments made by a Seattle man who contended that his juvenile adjudications should have been removed from his offender score calculation. The three-judge panel rejected this claim, ruling that a 2023 legislative amendment, which generally excludes most juvenile records from scoring, does not apply retroactively to crimes committed in February 2021. Consequently, the sentence was evaluated based on the statutes in force at the time of the offense.
The unpublished opinion was authored by Acting Chief Judge Bill Bowman, with Judges Tam Bui and Cecily Hazelrigg concurring. The lower court judgment being reviewed had been issued by King County Superior Court Judge William L. Dixon.