State v. Hahn
| Decision Date | 15 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 86427–6.,86427–6. |
| Citation | 174 Wash.2d 126,271 P.3d 892 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Aaron Michael HAHN, Respondent. |
Brian Patrick Wendt, Clallam County Prosecutor's Office, Port Angeles, WA, for Petitioner.
Manek R. Mistry, Jodi R. Backlund, Backlund & Mistry, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Aaron Hahn asked someone to make a girl "disappear" or appear as if she "never existed" or "just be gone." Hahn was convicted of solicitation to commit first degree murder. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that Hahn was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of solicitation to commit fourth degree assault. Because the evidence did not support such an instruction, we grant the State's petition for review and reverse the Court of Appeals.
¶ 2 Hahn was charged with four counts of third degree child rape, sexual exploitation of a minor, possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and stalking. The complaining witness was S.M. While confined in jail awaiting trial, Hahn mentioned to another inmate, Mike Hendrickson, that he wished S.M. were dead and that he would hurt her. Hahn asked Hendrickson if he knew anyone who could "get to" S.M., but Hendrickson said he could not help. Report of Proceedings (Oct. 26, 2009) at 92. Hahn then asked inmate Norman Livengood if he had any mafia connections, stating that he wanted someone hurt or killed. Livengood related the encounter to the police and agreed to cooperate in the resulting investigation. The police obtained a warrant and wired Livengood to record his conversations with Hahn.
¶ 3 Livengood told Hahn that he was going to call "Miguel" (an undercover police officer) about Hahn's request. Among the remarks Hahn made to Livengood were that he wanted S.M. to "disappear," that he wanted her to "[d]isappear, make it look like she didn't exist," and that he wanted to "[m]ake it look like she never existed." Ex. 41, at 6. Hahn wondered whether Miguel would ask him to "knock somebody off" in return for making S.M. disappear. Id. at 10. Hahn did not disagree with Livengood's statement that Hahn was asking Miguel to do the same thing. Later in the conversation, Livengood asked Hahn again what he wanted "done to the girl." Id. at 13. Hahn replied, "Disappear." Id. Livengood asked, "You just want her to disappear?" Id. Hahn responded, "Just say that, yep." Id. He then explained, "That's discreet enough that the cops won't figure it out but [Miguel will] know what I'm talking about." Id. Livengood later gave Hahn Miguel's telephone number and told Hahn to call Miguel and discuss the details.
¶ 4 Hahn called Miguel and told him that he trusted him on however he wanted "to get it done." Ex. 52, at 2. They agreed Miguel would give S.M. an anonymous "gift" or "present." Id. Miguel agreed to send Hahn confirmation that the "gift" had been delivered. Id. Miguel asked Hahn whether he wanted anyone to know about the gift or "do you want them to not be around once they get it." Id. at 3. Hahn answered that only he wanted to know about the gift. Miguel said that he understood but asked again whether Hahn "wanted them to be around or just be gone." Id. Hahn answered, "Just, just be gone." Id.
¶ 5 The State charged Hahn with solicitation to commit first degree murder. Hahn's defense was that he asked Miguel to only frighten S.M., and he asked the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of solicitation to commit fourth degree assault. The court denied the request, and the jury found Hahn guilty.
¶ 6 Hahn appealed, arguing among other things that the trial court should have instructed on solicitation to commit fourth degree assault. The Court of Appeals reversed on that issue, holding that the evidence supported giving the instruction. State v. Hahn, 162 Wash.App. 885, 256 P.3d 1267 (2011). The court rejected Hahn's other arguments about claimed errors that could recur on retrial, and it declined to consider other issues not likely to again arise. Id. at 894–901, 256 P.3d 1267.
¶ 7 The State sought review in this court, while Hahn conditionally sought review of other issues. We grant the State's petition only and decline to review the issues Hahn raises.
¶ 8 A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction if (1) each element of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the offense charged (legal prong) and (2) the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, supports an inference that only the lesser crime was committed (factual prong). State v. Workman, 90 Wash.2d 443, 447–48, 584 P.2d 382 (1978). Under the common law, a person assaults another by attempting to inflict bodily harm on another (attempted common law battery), by unlawfully touching another with criminal intent (actual battery), or by placing another in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cardenas-Flores
...(assault requires "proof of an ‘unlawful[ ] touching ... with criminal intent.’ " (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hahn , 174 Wash.2d 126, 129, 271 P.3d 892 (2012) )). Cardenas-Flores appears to contend that "criminal intent" requires some form of malice. But she misconstrues our ......
-
State v. Inzunza
...incapable of inflicting that harm.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Walden, 67 Wash.App. 891, 841 P.2d 81, 83 (1992); accord State v. Hahn, 174 Wash.2d 126, 271 P.3d 892, 893 (2012); State v. Frohs, 83 Wash.App. 803, 924 P.2d 384, 390 (1996). These definitions specify different manners or methods o......
-
State v. Roussel
...that this "inferential leap to mere fourth degree assault is too great even when the evidence is interpreted in Hahn's favor." Hahn, 174 Wn.2d at 130.[7] The however, takes the "inferential leap" disapproved of in Hahn a step further, and would hold the jury could infer that Roussel committ......
-
State v. Roussel (In re Pers. Restraint Petition Roussel)
...Roussel's proposed fourth degree assault instruction.6 In State v. Hahn, 162 Wn. App. 885, 902, 256 P.3d 1267 (2011), rev'd, 174 Wn.2d 126, 271 P.3d 892 (2012), we held that the defendant's statements that he wanted the victim to "disappear" was sufficient to instruct the jury on solicitati......