State v. Jeffries
| Decision Date | 27 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 50062-2,50062-2 |
| Citation | 717 P.2d 722,105 Wn.2d 398 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Patrick James JEFFRIES, Appellant. En Banc |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
David Bruneau, Clallam Co. Prosecutor, Christopher Melly, James Hickman, Deputy Co. Prosecutors, Port Angeles, for respondent.
On April 2, 1983, the bodies of Philip and Inez Skiff were found buried in shallow graves. Philip's body was found 300 feet south of the Skiff residence while Inez' body was located 100 feet south of their house. 1 Both had been shot repeatedly with .22 caliber lead bullets: Philip 7 times, while Inez had been shot 10 times. In November 1983, Patrick James Jeffries was convicted of two counts of aggravated first degree murder for the deaths of Phil and Inez Skiff. A jury sentenced him to death. Jeffries appeals to this court. We affirm.
The Skiffs first met the defendant, Jeffries, when he was in prison in Canada. He was serving a 12-year sentence for robbery which was his 15th conviction in 19 years. 2 Phil There were no eyewitnesses to the murder of either Phil or Inez Skiff, and no murder weapons were ever found. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicates, however, that Jeffries killed the Skiffs, stole their money and property, lied as to the Skiffs' whereabouts and fled to Canada. When he found that the Canadian authorities were looking for him, he returned to Wenatchee where he was arrested.
Skiff, an amateur artist, admired some wood sculptures Jeffries had carved. After he had been released from prison, Jeffries violated the terms of his parole by entering the United States. He arrived at the Skiffs' home in Clallam County on January 15, 1983. The Skiffs provided him with food and shelter and the necessary tools and materials so that he could continue his wood carving
The evidence indicates that although Jeffries had lived with the Skiffs for several weeks, and had gotten along well with both Phil and Inez, the relationship, apparently, began to sour. In early March, Inez expressed concern when Jeffries' name was mentioned.
The facts imply that the murders occurred on Saturday, March 19, sometime between 12 noon and 2:30 p.m. The Skiffs' neighbors, Al and Frieda Opdahl, saw them alive shortly before noon on the 19th. Al Opdahl noticed Phil Skiff was wearing a blue jumpsuit. Phil's body was clad in a blue jumpsuit when it was unearthed. Frieda later saw Inez, who was wearing gardening clothes, at approximately 1:30 p.m. When Inez' body was uncovered, she was in her gardening clothes.
On March 9, just 10 days before her death, Inez withdrew over $30,000 in Canadian currency from a British Columbia bank. This money has never been found, though Jeffries was seen on March 19 in the evening and thereafter, with large amounts of Canadian money.
The Opdahls regarded the Skiffs as good friends and talked with them on a daily basis. They had known the Skiffs since 1977. When the Skiffs went on trips, they always told the Opdahls when they were leaving. The Opdahls would take care of the Skiffs' cat and collect their Frieda Opdahl saw Jeffries a number of times on the 19th. The first time was at noon when she saw Jeffries on the victims' Kubota tractor traveling from the field that is south of the Skiffs' house, the same field which borders the area in which the Skiffs were buried. She thought that this was odd as she had never seen him outside of the workshop during his entire stay with the Skiffs. She saw him again at 2 p.m. riding the tractor coming from the field.
mail during these times.
At 2:30, she and her daughter, Nancy Folger, took her two grandchildren to the Skiffs' house to play on the Skiffs' trampoline. She saw him for the third time riding the tractor back from the field. Jeffries went over to Frieda Opdahl and she introduced him to her daughter. She then decided to take her two grandchildren to a creek on the Skiffs' property and remarked to the defendant that maybe she could find the Skiffs there. The defendant replied that maybe she would. As soon as Frieda started down for the creek and told her grandchildren that they might see the Skiffs there, Jeffries changed his story and said Phil was getting some cedar from the field south of the house.
Frieda Opdahl returned to the trampoline at approximately 3 p.m. and Jeffries was still there. She told him that the Skiffs were not down at the creek. Jeffries again changed his story and said that the Skiffs went away with some friends in a motor home for a couple of days and when they returned they were leaving on a more extended trip. Frieda then asked Jeffries if she, her daughter, and grandchildren could see his wood carvings. He complied and took all five of them into the workshop. They stayed for about 5 minutes before leaving and did not enter or go near the jewelry room where Inez was murdered.
Frieda Opdahl saw Jeffries for the last time at approximately 6 or 6:30 p.m. Once again he was riding the tractor back and forth in the field.
Rex and Annabelle Elliot also saw the defendant on Saturday During the second trip, Jeffries lied, telling the Elliots that he was the Skiffs' son and his parents were planning to move. He said that they wanted to sell some household goods and asked if the Elliots were interested in buying anything. The Elliots inquired if the Skiffs were selling a TV. At the house Jeffries showed them a large television set, which he said the Skiffs had paid $1,200 for but would sell for a lot less. The Elliots said they were not interested. At that time Rex Elliot noticed a .22 caliber Colt Woodsman on the kitchen counter. Jeffries said that he had been cleaning it; however, Rex did not notice any odor of cleaning solvent. He did see, however, an empty shell cartridge lying on the floor. The Elliots asked where the Skiffs were. Defendant told them that they would be home in a few minutes and asked them if they wanted to wait for them. They said no and left.
March 19. They made two trips to the meadow south of the Skiff residence that afternoon in order to dump some brush. During both trips, Jeffries met them on the tractor and helped them unload the brush. The place where they unloaded the brush was between the two burial sites. The time of the first trip was approximately 2 p.m. and the second one was an hour later. The Elliots had noticed that while Jeffries was not intoxicated, he obviously had been drinking
THE JOURNEY TO CANADA
On Monday, March 21, at 9 a.m., defendant told Alfred Opdahl that he had received a telephone call from the Skiffs the night before. Defendant said that the Skiffs were in Seattle, that they would be home in a couple of days, and that they then would be leaving again. On that same day defendant attempted to sell some gold to Norman Saari, a gold dealer in Port Angeles. Jeffries possessed 2.5 ounces of placer gold and two gold coins that Saari was willing to buy. When Jeffries was unable to produce any identification, Saari refused to buy the gold.
On Tuesday, March 22, defendant went to the Opdahls' Jeffries subsequently left the Skiff home on March 22 or 23. He took the Skiffs' pickup truck, their portable TV, chain saw, binoculars, placer gold, coins, food, liquor and numerous small articles, and perhaps the $30,000 of Canadian money. In Wenatchee he was able to sell some of the placer gold and gold coins for $1,080. One of the gold coins was later identified as belonging to Philip Skiff.
house and asked Alfred Opdahl the best way to Bellingham. Defendant stated that he planned to meet someone there. This story was apparently a ruse as defendant later went to Wenatchee not to Bellingham
In Wenatchee, Jeffries met Dan Helland. Helland testified that they became friends and decided to prospect for gold in Canada. They drove the Skiffs' truck to within a mile of the border, parked the truck and threw away the keys. From there they hiked into Canada, stashing some gear, food, clothing and rifles in different locations en route. Once in Canada, Jeffries called his niece and learned that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were looking for them. They then returned to Wenatchee and were arrested by police.
While in custody, Helland informed the police that he had hidden some possessions in a "hobo" camp just outside of Wenatchee. At the "storage areas" the police recovered, in addition to food, clothing, and two rifles, a bullet shell casing. This casing was later identified as having come from the same gun that fired the two casings that were recovered in the Skiff workshop. At the "hobo" camp, the police recovered two backpacks. In Jeffries' backpack a small Sony television was found which was identified as belonging to Philip Skiff.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT JURY'S FINDINGS AND VERDICT
The standard for appellate review of a jury's finding is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
Reviewing the entire record, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marshall
... ... Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 502 Pa. 474, 467 A.2d 288, 304 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256, 104 S.Ct. 3547, 82 L.Ed.2d 850 (1984) ... Page 151 ... Justice Utter, in his separate dissent in State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash.2d 398, 717 P.2d 722, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 328, 93 L.Ed.2d 301 (1986), suggested the use of a "balancing approach superimposed upon a 'salient factors' approach" to identify the pool of similar cases. 2 Id. 717 P.2d 722 at 744. That approach involves two steps. The ... ...
-
State v. Conaway
...does not turn on the labels "sufficient" or "substantial" evidence, which are often used interchangeably. See State v. Jeffries , 105 Wash.2d 398, 407, 717 P.2d 722 (1986). Rather, in that case the court rejected a test that required merely "substantial evidence" supporting each element of ......
-
State v. Rupe
...sentencing proceeding. In a capital case, this court will review issues where no proper objection was made at trial. State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash.2d 398, 418, 717 P.2d 722, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 328, 93 L.Ed.2d 301 (1986). Therefore, we will consider all of the Evidence must......
-
Personal Restraint of Benn, Matter of
...P.2d 1086; State v. Rupe, 108 Wash.2d 734, 743 P.2d 210 (1987); State v. Mak, 105 Wash.2d 692, 718 P.2d 407 (1986); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash.2d 398, 717 P.2d 722 (1986); State v. Campbell, 103 Wash.2d 1, 691 P.2d 929 (1984); State v. Rupe, 101 Wash.2d 664, 683 P.2d 571 (1984). As the def......
-
The failure of comparative proportionality review of capital cases (with lessons from New Jersey).
...establish a threshold level of acceptability (let us say the fifty percent suggested by Justice Utter), [dissenting in State v. Jeffries, 717 P.2d 722, 744 (1986)] to ignore striking disproportion between death-sentenced cases and those in the life-sentenced pool could be unfair to those in......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...the naked eye will not be protected by either state or federal provisions against search and seizure. State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash. 2d 398, 717 P.2d 722 (1986), cert denied, - U.S. -, 107 S. Ct. 328 (1986); United States v. Pruitt, 464 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1972) (police search of boxes hidden ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...eye will not be protected by either state or federal provisions against search and seizure. State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash. 2d 398, 413-14, 717 P.2d 722, 731 (1986); United States v. Pruitt, 464 F.2d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1972) (police search of boxes hidden in trees covered with underbrush; defe......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...fields obtained by use of photos and testimony of officer taken from a "plain view" vantage point was sufficient); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 413-14, 717 P.2d 722, 731 (1986) (en banc) ("storage areas" that are visible to the naked eye will not be protected by either state or federal......