State Of Wash. v. Bunker
| Decision Date | 26 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81921-1, 81940-8.,s. 81921-1, 81940-8. |
| Citation | 169 Wash.2d 571,238 P.3d 487 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Leo B. BUNKER, Petitioner. State of Washington, Respondent, v. Donald Carl Williams, Petitioner. State of Washington, Petitioner, v. Rachel Marie Vincent, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher Gibson, Nielsen Broman & Koch P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Melody M. Crick, Pierce County Prosecutor's Office, Tacoma, WA, Randi J. Austell, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Leo Bunker, Donald Williams, and Rachel Vincent were charged with criminal violations of no-contact orders under former RCW 26.50.110 (2006). The defendants 1 argue that the language of the statute criminalizes only those contacts with a protected party that are violent, threaten violence, or occur in a specifically prohibited place. We hold that former RCW 26.50.110 correctly criminalizes all no-contact order violations and affirm the defendants' convictions.
¶ 2 Leo Bunker was pulled over by the Washington State Patrol for speeding while driving his semitractor-trailer. Lillian Hiatt was Bunker's passenger. A records check on Bunker revealed two court orders prohibiting Bunker from contacting Hiatt. Bunker was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating no-contact orders under former RCW 26.50.110.
¶ 3 Donald Williams was convicted by a jury on three felony counts of violating a no-contact order under former RCW 26.50.110. The order prohibited Williams from coming within 500 feet of Linda Poole's residence and work and from having any contact with Poole except phone calls to arrange visits with their five-year-old daughter.
¶ 4 On March 13, 2006, Williams phoned Poole while she was at a grocery store, calling her several profane names. Poole returned home to find Williams waiting for her in an angry and intoxicated state. When Poole told Williams she was leaving to pick up their daughter from day care, Williams tried to take Poole's keys and grabbed her wrist. Poole broke free, and Williams placed his hand on her chest and pushed her. Frightened but uninjured, Poole got into her truck and left.
¶ 5 Williams called Poole while she drove to their daughter's day care. Williams yelled vulgar words over the phone at Poole so loudly that the day care provider was able to hear. Williams said he would trash the house, rip the telephone and computer out of the wall, take the tools and truck, and kidnap the children's dog if Poole did not immediately return home. Poole was afraid to call the police, so the day care provider called 911. An officer accompanied Poole home, but Williams was gone when Poole and the officer arrived.
¶ 6 During dinner with her daughter that night, Poole saw Williams standing at her window, trying to get in. He appeared more intoxicated than before. Poole was afraid and refused to let Williams in. Williams left, and Poole called the police. Williams denied contacting Poole on March 13, 2006, but acknowledged the order and previous violations. A jury convicted Williams of three no-contact order violations.
¶ 7 Bunker and Williams appealed their convictions, arguing that any no-contact order violation must also constitute an act requiring mandatory arrest under RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) or (b) to be a criminal offense. Neither the charging documents nor the jury instructions referenced either subsection of the statute. In a consolidated decision, Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed Bunker's and Williams' convictions and held that no-contact order violations were crimes regardless of whether the offending conduct also satisfied RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) or (b). State v. Bunker, 144 Wash.App. 407, 183 P.3d 1086 (2008).
¶ 8 On January 4, 2007, Pierce County Sheriff's Department deputies pulled over Howard Seaworth for driving a car with expired tags. Rachel Marie Vincent was Seaworth's passenger. A records check revealed a no-contact order prohibiting Vincent from contacting Seaworth. Vincent acknowledged she was aware of the no-contact order and had been arrested a few days prior for violating it. Vincent was again arrested for violating the no-contact order.
¶ 9 A Pierce County District Court judge found Vincent guilty in a stipulated facts trial, and Vincent appealed to Pierce County Superior Court. The superior court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss based on the Court of Appeals, Division Two decision in State v. Hogan, 145 Wash.App. 210, 192 P.3d 915 (2008). Hogan held that former RCW 26.50.110(1) (2000) only criminalized no-contact order violations if an arrest was required under RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) or (b). Accord State v. Madrid, 145 Wash.App. 106, 117, 192 P.3d 909 (2008). The superior court reasoned that Vincent's conduct did not warrant arrest under RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) or (b), so Vincent's no-contact order violation was not a crime.
¶ 10 The State petitioned this court for discretionary review, and we granted review, consolidating Vincent with Bunker. Division Two then published two opinions declining to follow its previous decisions in Hogan and Madrid, instead adopting Division One's Bunker analysis. State v. Wofford, 148 Wash.App. 870, 881, 201 P.3d 389 (2009); State v. Allen, 150 Wash.App. 300, 309, 207 P.3d 483 (2009). We agree with the Bunker court's results and affirm the defendants' criminal convictions.
¶ 11 Bunker, Williams, and Vincent were charged with violations of no-contact order provisions under former RCW 26.50.110, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Whenever an order is granted under this chapter, chapter 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, or 74.34 RCW, or there is a valid foreign protection order as defined in RCW 26.52.020, and the respondent or person to be restrained knows of the order, a violation of the restraint provisions, or of a provision excluding the person from a residence, workplace, school, or day care, or of a provision prohibiting a person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location, or of a provision of a foreign protection order specifically indicating that a violation will be a crime, for which an arrest is required under RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) or (b), is a gross misdemeanor except as provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section.
Former RCW 26.50.110(1) 2 (emphasis added). Subsections (4) and (5) elevate a crime's status from misdemeanor to felony. RCW 10.31.100(2)(a) requires an officer to arrest a person who violates a no-contact order's provisions prohibiting “acts or threats of violence” or entering or remaining in a prohibited location. Subsection (2)(b) applies to foreign protection orders only and is not implicated by the facts of this case. Arrest under either subsection is mandatory when probable cause exists; no arrest warrant is required.
¶ 12 The defendants argue that the statutory language italicized above modifies the phrase “a violation of the restraint provisions,” and therefore no-contact order violations that do not satisfy the mandatory arrest requirements are not crimes. If this construction of the statute is rejected, then a violation of a no-contact order is a gross misdemeanor or felony.
¶ 13 It is clear from examining the statute in context that any no-contact order violation is a crime, and the arrest provision does not modify the phrase “a violation of the restraint provisions.” The mandatory arrest requirements are thus not elements of the crime of violating a no-contact order under former RCW 26.50.110(1). The defendants' charging documents and jury instructions were not deficient, and we affirm the defendants' convictions.
¶ 14 We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo and interpret statutes to give effect to the legislature's intentions. City of Spokane v. County of Spokane, 158 Wash.2d 661, 672-73, 146 P.3d 893 (2006). We begin by examining the plain language of the statute. In re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, 166 Wash.2d 834, 838-39, 215 P.3d 166 (2009). “ ‘The plain meaning of a statute may be discerned from all that the Legislature has said in the statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.’ ” Chadwick Farms Owners Ass'n v. FHC LLC, 166 Wash.2d 178, 186, 207 P.3d 1251 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)). Further, “[a]n act must be construed as a whole, considering all provisions in relation to one another and harmonizing all rather than rendering any superfluous.” State v. George, 160 Wash.2d 727, 738, 158 P.3d 1169 (2007) (citing State v. Greenwood, 120 Wash.2d 585, 594, 845 P.2d 971 (1993)). Finally, we employ traditional rules of grammar in discerning the plain language of the statute. Chevelle, 166 Wash.2d at 839, 215 P.3d 166.
¶ 15 One such grammar rule is the last antecedent rule, which states that qualifying or modifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent. Spokane, 158 Wash.2d at 673, 146 P.3d 893; Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 600, 121 P.3d 82 (2005) (C. Johnson, J., dissenting). Related to this rule is the corollary principle that “ ‘the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one.’ ” Spokane, 158 Wash.2d at 673, 146 P.3d 893 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Berrocal, 155 Wash.2d at 593, 121 P.3d 82). We do not apply the rule if other factors, such as context and language in related statutes, indicate contrary legislative intent or if applying the rule would result in an absurd or nonsensical interpretation. See State v. McGee, 122 Wash.2d 783, 789, 864 P.2d 912 (1993); In re Pers. Restraint of Smith, 139...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...Wash.2d 602]¶ 25 Finally, “we employ traditional rules of grammar in discerning the plain language of a statute.” State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 578, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). According to Jongeward, the 2009 punctuation change is further evidence that the legislature intended the phrase “oth......
-
State v. Barboza-Cortes
...1030. ¶ 14 Whether a given statute creates an alternative means crime is a question of statutory interpretation. State v. Bunker , 169 Wash.2d 571, 577-78, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). When engaging in statutory interpretation, our "fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislatur......
-
Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Mgmt. (colo.) Llc
...statute is ambiguous, we may look to the statute's subsequent history to clarify the original legislative intent. 6 State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 581, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). A new legislative enactment is presumed to be an amendment that changes a law rather than a clarification of the ex......
-
State v. McDaniel
...assault as a predicate offense. I. Standard of Review ¶ 11 We review interpretation of a statute de novo. State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 577–78, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). We endeavor to effectuate the legislature's intent. 169 Wash.2d at 577–78, 238 P.3d 487. First, we look to the plain langu......
-
§ 12.7 Standard of Review Applied to Specific Rulings: Civil Cases
...314 P.3d 1125 (2013) (citing Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn. App. 811, 823-24, 25 P.3d 467 (2001), and State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 577-78, 238 P.3d 487 (15) Vacation of judgment Rulings on CR 60 motions and motions to vacate a default judgment are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jo......
-
Table of Cases
...denied, 528 U.S. 1154 (2000): 18.2(5), 18.5 State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63, 941 P.2d 667 (1997): 16.4(12) State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 238 P.3d 487 (2010): 12.7(14) State v. Burch, 65 Wn. App. 828, 830 P.2d 357 (1992): 11.7(9)(a) State v. Burette, 178 Wn. App. 183, 313 P.3d 1235 (2013): ......