State v. Arndt

• Citation: 453 P.3d 696,194 Wash.2d 784
• Decision Date: 05 December 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 95396-1,95396-1
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Shelly Margaret ARNDT, Petitioner.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

194 Wash.2d 784

453 P.3d 696

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Shelly Margaret ARNDT, Petitioner.

NO. 95396-1

Supreme Court of Washington.

Filed December 5, 2019

Jodi R. Backlund, Manek R. Mistry, Backlund & Mistry, P.O. Box 6490, Olympia, WA, 98507-6490, for Petitioner.

Randall Avery Sutton, Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office, 614 Division Street, Port Orchard, WA, 98366-4614, for Respondents.

STEPHENS, J.

¶1 After an extensive trial, a jury convicted Shelly Arndt on charges including aggravated first degree murder and first degree arson, and she received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Arndt appealed, arguing that her Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and her right to be free from double jeopardy were violated. U.S. CONST . amends. VI, V. The Court of Appeals affirmed Arndt’s conviction and sentence in an unpublished, divided opinion.¹ State v. Arndt , No. 48525-7-II, slip op. at 37, 2017 WL 6337458 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2048525-7-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf. ¶2 We affirm. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s rulings limiting the testimony of Arndt’s expert witness did not violate Arndt’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and were well within the court’s discretion. We further conclude that Arndt’s convictions for both first degree aggravated murder and first degree arson do not violate double jeopardy protections, as our precedent is clear that when two crimes have separate purposes and effects, multiple punishments are allowed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 On February 23, 2014, a fire broke out in a two-story house that belonged to Kelly O’Neil and her husband. At the time of the fire, there were eight people inside the home: Kelly O’Neil, Shelly Arndt, Darcy Veeder Jr., Donald Thomas, O’Neil’s adult daughter Autumn Kriefels, and three children. Everyone except Veeder was able to escape the fire. Veeder succumbed to smoke inhalation and died inside the residence.

¶4 The O’Neil home was heated by a wood stove on the main floor. Downstairs in the split-entry home there was a gas insert fireplace and baseboard heating, but the power and gas to both were turned off. A vent between the upstairs and downstairs was located near the wood stove. On the night of the fire, Arndt, Veeder, and Thomas were the last occupants awake, and they fell asleep on couches in the upstairs living room. O’Neil, Kriefels, and the children were sleeping in various bedrooms.

¶5 Arndt testified that she woke to the smell of smoke and immediately woke Thomas up to tell him that she smelled something. She also woke O’Neil, who described a smell like burning tires and said she saw an orange glow coming from the living room side of the downstairs area.

O’Neil collected the three minor children and ran outside. Upon realizing that Kriefels was still inside the home, O’Neil ran back with Arndt to get Kriefels from her room. The house was engulfed in flames within 30-45 seconds after they reached the driveway. Eventually, the fire department arrived to control the fire. Veeder’s body was found in the living room on the second floor of the home.

¶6 After the fire department completed its work, the scene was turned over to Kitsap County Fire Marshal David Lynam for investigation. The details of Lynam’s testimony, as well as the testimony of an insurance company investigator and two experts retained for trial, are a major focus in this appeal and are discussed below. During the course of the investigation, suspicion fell on Arndt, who had prior arson charges.²

¶7 The State charged Arndt with several crimes. First, it charged her with aggravated first degree murder under RCW 9A.32.030(l)(a) and RCW 10.95.020 with the aggravating circumstance of first degree arson under RCW 10.95.020(11). It also made special allegations of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.020 and alleged an aggravating circumstance allowing for departure from the sentencing guidelines under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(b), alleging the victim was a particularly vulnerable person. Second, it alternatively charged her with first degree murder (felony murder) under RCW 9A.32.030(l)(c), again with special allegations of domestic violence and a particularly vulnerable person aggravating circumstance. Third, the State charged her with first degree arson under RCW 9A.48.020 with special allegations of domestic violence and a particularly vulnerable person aggravating circumstance. Finally, it charged her with six counts of second degree assault under RCW 9A.36.021, two of which included special allegations of domestic violence.

Fire Investigation Testimony

¶8 The fire scene was analyzed by four investigators, including Fire Marshall Lynam. See Am. Pet. for Review at 2-5. Because this case is, in large part, concerned with the defense expert’s adherence to proper investigatory procedures compared with the other investigations Conducted, a brief overview of the individual investigators’ work is necessary.

Fire Marshal David Lynam

¶9 Kitsap County Fire Marshal David Lynam is charged with investigating the origin, cause, and circumstances of fires within Kitsap County. 14 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Oct. 26, 2015) at 2594. As the prosecution’s chief expert witness, Lynam testified to his qualifications and how he conducts all of his investigations in accordance with National Fire Protection Association 921 (NFPA 921).³ See id. at 2586-99. In addition to following the guidance in NFPA 921, Lynam testified:

The approach I have adopted and instructed all my deputies we adopt, is ... [your work] typically goes from the outside in, you want to evaluate the whole scene and condition that you have, and you are working from areas of least damage to most damage.

Id. at 2599. As the public official who takes charge of the fire scene immediately after the fire department, Lynam has the authority to exclude all private investigators until his investigation is complete. Id. at 2595.

¶10 Lynam’s investigation and resulting conclusions were challenged extensively by the defendant’s expert witness, Dale Mann. Because these conclusions are discussed in depth relating to various evidentiary rulings, they will not be detailed at this time. In summary, Lynam concluded that the fire started when someone ignited a beanbag chair near a couch in the house’s basement. Am. Pet. for Review at 2; 15 VRP (Oct. 27, 2015) at 2922-23.

Ed Iskra

¶11 Ed Iskra was under contract with Allstate Insurance and was tasked with determining the origin and cause of the O’Neil residential fire to preserve the right of Allstate to proceed against any defective appliance manufacturer. 9 VRP (Oct. 15, 2015) at 1552. Based on the results of his investigation, Iskra testified for the prosecution.

¶12 On direct examination, Iskra described the procedures that he followed:

I follow a systematic approach to my investigation. So I go out and do the exterior, the interior, and from the inspection, if there’s specific things that may be—that might be a cost factor for the—besides my initial investigation, for the insurance company, I call my claims adjustor and tell them what I have and [w]ould you like me to do certain things; yes or no?

Id. at 1554. As a first step in his investigation, Iskra called Lynam to determine if Lynam had released the scene. He also testified that he spoke with both of the O’Neils to get a sense of the activities that occurred before and during the fire (e.g., what electrical devices were plugged in, etc.). Iskra testified how his standard procedure is to conduct his own investigation independent of any prior conclusions.

¶13 Initially, because Lynam had not released the scene, Iskra conducted an investigation of the exterior of the house, examined the locations where the fire vented from the house, examined the resulting debris pile, and took photographs. He detailed how his initial hypothesis, based on witness statements and exterior bum patterns, led him to believe that the fire started on the outside deck. This hypothesis was later disproved once he was able to gain access to the interior of the home a few days later. Id. at 1560-61.

¶14 Iskra next detailed the systematic approach that he utilizes for examining the interior of a fire scene:

I usually start from the front door, if that is accessible, sometimes it’s not and I’ve got to go in the back door, but I will go in—into the interior of the home and go to what I determine the least area of damage and start my internal examination of the home from there and work to the most damage.

Id. at 1569. Using this approach, Iskra described his examination of the interior of the house in detail. He discussed the possibility that the scene went to "flashover"⁴ and reviewed the relevant training he had received to make a "flashover" determination. Id. at 1569-1631.

¶15 Finally, Iskra discussed his need to rely on the reports and documentation of other fire investigators because fire scenes are sometimes altered, e.g., from digging or the removal of electrical components, in the process of other investigations. Here, Iskra initially characterized the cause of the fire as "undetermined," due to "alterations of the scene and evidence being removed." Id. at 1633. After reviewing Fire Marshall Lynam’s "documentation, data, [and] evidence," to supplement what he examined at the scene, Iskra changed his determination to "intentionally set." Id. at 1635. He examined Lynam’s reports and documentation detailing how the fire was "dug out," and concluded that "[i]t was more likely than not that a fire was started with a handheld devi[c]e to combustible materials." Id. at 1636.

Ken Rice

¶16 Ken Rice is a senior fire investigator for CASE Forensics who conducted a technical review of Lynam’s investigation. CASE Forensics is a privately held forensic engineering firm that conducts failure analysis in multiple disciplines of engineering. Rice testified for ...