State v. Britt
| Decision Date | 13 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 81033-2-I,81033-2-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. NATASHIA MONIQUE BRITT, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DWYER, J. — Natashia Britt appeals from her convictions for one count of assault of a child in the first degree, two counts of assault of a child in the second degree, and two counts of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. She raises numerous contentions concerning the validity of her convictions and the imposition of a criminal filing fee and a DNA collection fee. We affirm the convictions, but remand to the trial court for a determination of whether Britt must pay a DNA collection fee and to strike the criminal filing fee.
Britt has three children, J.B., B.C., and D.A. Prior to 2015, the children lived together with Britt in Des Moines. During this time, Britt whipped J.B., then approximately 10 years old, and B.C., then approximately 8 years old, with a belt on multiple occasions. Britt forced the children to remove their clothing before each whipping. These whippings left visible bruise marks on the childrens' bodies that would last for days, which Britt would instruct the children to hide from others.
B.C.'s bruises were discovered by his school nurse, resulting in the Children's Administration of the Department of Social and Health Services (CPS) removing all three children from Britt's care. CPS placed the children with Britt's aunt, Linda Rogers. Rogers never physically disciplined the children, but did observe scarring on B.C.'s body.
Then, in 2016, the children were returned to Britt, who had moved to Tacoma. Britt resumed her prior behavior, whipping both J.B. and B.C. with a cable cord on multiple occasions. During one particular whipping, Britt directed B.C. to strip naked, used packing tape to tape B.C.'s mouth shut, taped B.C.'s hands behind his back, and taped his legs together, then whipped his naked body with the cord. This left bruises on B.C.'s back, buttocks, and hamstring.
During this time, Britt also beat, and in one occasion strangled, B.C. If B.C. resisted the beatings, Britt would enlist J.B. to help restrain B.C. so that she could beat him. These beatings sometimes left scars on the boys' bodies.
In addition to the physical abuse, Britt also showed the boys sexually explicit material, including a pornographic video entitled "Two Girls, One Cup."
Later in 2016, CPS once again removed J.B. and B.C. from Britt's care, placing them with Regina and Norman Golden, Britt's mother and stepfather, who were already caring for Regina's other daughter, A. However, because ReginaGolden would not participate in a background check, CPS explained that she would have to move out of the home.
J.B. told Regina Golden about the beatings and whippings, and showed her the pornographic video that Britt had showed the boys. Regina Golden then reported the abuse to the boys' assigned social worker, which resulted in the Tacoma Police Department opening an investigation into the abuse allegations. During this investigation, Detective William Muse conducted multiple forensic interviews of both J.B. and B.C., and also interviewed Britt. During her interview with the detective, Britt initially denied ever hitting the children, but eventually admitted that she would "[p]op the children on their legs." By a "pop," Britt meant an open-handed strike.
The State subsequently charged Britt with one count of assault of a child in the first degree, two counts of assault of a child in the second degree, two counts of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes, one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of child molestation in the first degree. Britt informed the State that she would pursue a defense of reasonable parental discipline. The matter was called for trial in September 2017.
During jury selection, the following exchange occurred with juror 26:
Subsequently, no party challenged, for cause or through the use of a preemptory challenge, juror 26 and she was seated on the jury.
At trial, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including B.C., J.B., Detective William Muse, corrections officer Torvald Pearson, Linda Rogers, Norman Golden, and Regina Golden's mother, Christine Kilpatrick.
During Rogers' testimony, the State asked her whether she had ever hit B.C. After Rogers answered in the negative, the State followed up by asking whether she had ever wanted to hit B.C. Over defense objection, the trial court permitted Rogers to again answer in the negative.
During Officer Pearson's testimony, the State admitted several recordings of telephone calls made by Britt while she was in jail. On one of these calls, Britt admitted to showing the boys a pornographic video. The State also attempted to admit testimony explaining that the recordings played for the jury were only excerpts of all of the recorded calls and describing the total length of all the calls. However, defense counsel successfully objected to the admission of this testimony. Later, the defense stipulated to informing the jurors that the recordings presented to them were excerpts from all of the recorded telephone calls.
Despite numerous attempts to locate her to compel her testimony by subpoena, Regina Golden did not testify at trial. Multiple State witnesses, including the boys and Christine Kilpatrick, testified that Regina Golden had been out of state for the three months leading up to and including the month of trial.However, the defense presented testimony from a defense investigator asserting that the investigator had successfully delivered a subpoena to Regina Golden in Washington only a few days before the start of trial.
Following the presentation of evidence, the jury found Britt guilty of assault of a child in the first degree, both counts of assault of a child in the second degree, and both counts of communicating with a minor for an immoral purpose. Sentences within the standard range for her offenses were imposed.
Britt appealed to Division Two, which transferred the matter to us for resolution. Subsequently, the trial court entered an amended judgment, modifying the conditions of Britt's sentence by removing several restrictions that had previously been set forth in the original judgment.
Britt first contends that the trial court erred by failing to, sua sponte, dismiss juror 26 because, she asserts, the juror's cognitive inability disqualified her from jury service. We disagree.
We review a trial court's decision regarding whether to excuse a juror for an abuse of discretion. State v. Elmore, 155 Wn.2d 758, 768-69, 123 P.3d 72 (2005); State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 748, 743 P.2d 210 (1987). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision 'is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons.'" Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 668-69, 230 P.3d 583 (2010) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 701, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)).
Generally, all United States citizens who are at least 18 years old, are able to communicate in English, and reside in the county in which they are summoned to serve, are qualified to serve as jurors in Washington. RCW 2.36.070. It is a trial judge's duty, however, to "excuse from further jury service any juror, who in the opinion of the judge, has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason of conduct or practices incompatible with proper and efficient jury service." RCW 2.36.110.
"While a trial court may have a duty to sua sponte intercede where actual bias is evident or where the defendant is not represented by counsel, this duty must also be balanced with the defendant's right to be represented by competent counsel." State v. Phillips, 6 Wn. App. 2d 651, 667, 431 P.3d 1056 (2018), review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1007 (2019). A trial court must therefore exercise caution before injecting itself into the jury selection process, because the decision to select or dismiss a juror is often "based on the trial counsel's experience, intuition, strategy, and discretion." State v. Lawler, 194 Wn. App. 275, 287, 374 P.3d 278 (2016).
Britt asserts that the trial judge should have, sua sponte, dismissed juror 26 because she manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of mental defect. Specifically, Britt asserts that the following exchange required dismissal:
To continue reading
Request your trial