State v. Broadaway

• Decision Date: 21 August 1997
• Docket Number: No. 64654-6,64654-6
• Citation: 133 Wn.2d 118,942 P.2d 363
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Nathaniel R. BROADAWAY, Appellant.

Page 118

133 Wn.2d 118

942 P.2d 363

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Nathaniel R. BROADAWAY, Appellant.

No. 64654-6.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Argued Feb. 26, 1997.

Decided Aug. 21, 1997.

Nielsen, Broman & Associates, Eric Nielsen, Eric Broman and Jonathan T. Stier, Seattle, for appellant

Jim Krider, Snohomish County Prosecutor and Aaron Fine, Deputy County Prosecutor, Everett, for respondent.

MADSEN, Justice.

Defendant challenges the constitutionality of Initiative 159, "Hard Time for Armed Crime," claiming that it does not satisfy the title and single subject requirements of article II, section 19 of the state constitution. In his pro se brief, he also challenges admissibility of his confession, and part of the judgment and sentence. We affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing.

Defendant Nathaniel R. Broadaway was convicted of first degree robbery committed while armed with a deadly Shortly after the robbery, Broadaway was arrested and read his Miranda rights. Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff David Harkins asked Broadaway about the robbery, which Broadaway initially denied taking part in. The deputy placed Broadaway in the back of his car. Ms. Skiles identified Broadaway as the robber. About 20 minutes after this identification, Broadaway became agitated and banged his head on the screen in the police car. The parties dispute what occurred at this point. Broadaway claims he asked to see his wife and Harkins promised he would bring her if Broadaway confessed. The State maintains Broadaway asked to see his wife and Harkins said only that he would see what he could do and told Broadaway he was going to jail in any case. After Skiles' identification, Harkins again questioned Broadaway, who led Harkins to the places where he said he had put the gun and most of the money after the robbery. Broadaway's wife was brought to the scene and Broadaway was allowed to say good-bye. He then gave a five-page confession, in which he admitted to robbing the Texaco while armed with a handgun.

                weapon.  On September 23, 1995, Broadaway went to the Island Crossing Texaco and placed a note on the counter saying "Give me your money or die bitch."   Ex. 4.  The clerk at the counter, Tanya Skiles, testified that she at first thought that Broadaway, whom she knew, was joking.  However, when he yelled at her to hurry up she emptied the cash register and gave the money to him.  She also opened the safe as he ordered and gave him the money in the safe as well as cigarettes which he demanded.  Skiles testified that when she turned from the safe, Broadaway pointed a black handgun at her chest.  The cash taken totaled $1,072.35
                

At the CrR 3.5 hearing on admissibility of Broadaway's confession, Broadaway maintained that his confession was involuntary because it was induced by a promise from Deputy Harkins that Broadaway could see his wife before being taken to jail. He argued the confession should be At trial, the defense theory was that Ms. Skiles was part of a conspiracy to rob the Texaco establishment, and that she reported use of a gun to the police in order to avoid suspicion of her own involvement which might arise if she had turned the money over to Broadaway without the threat of a gun. Broadaway maintains that he did not have a gun when he committed the robbery.

suppressed on the ground that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated. The trial court ruled the confession was voluntary and admissible.

The jury found Broadaway guilty of first degree robbery, and returned a special verdict finding that he was armed with a deadly weapon at the time he committed the crime. The standard range for first degree armed robbery with an offender score of 1, as Broadaway had, is 36 to 48 months. The deadly weapon enhancement (firearm enhancement) is 60 months, under the Hard Time for Armed Crime Act, Laws of 1995, ch. 129 (Initiative 159); see RCW 9.94A.310(3). The trial court sentenced Broadaway within the standard sentence range with the deadly weapon enhancement, a total sentence of 99 months.

The judgment and sentence provides in part:

COMMUNITY PLACEMENT. RCW 9.94A.120. Community placement is ordered for a community placement eligible offense (e.g., ... any crime against a person with a deadly weapon finding ... ), and standard mandatory conditions are ordered. Community placement is ordered for the period of time provided by law.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17. The judge stated at the sentencing hearing that "[t]he statute requires two years of community placement so I'll impose that as a standard statutory condition." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (RP) (Dec. 11, 1995) at 11. The judgment and sentence does not reflect this conclusion.

Broadaway appealed. In the briefs prepared by counsel, he challenges the constitutionality of Initiative 159 under article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution .

                Initiative 159 was submitted to and passed by the Legislature in 1995.  Its official ballot title is:  "Shall penalties and sentencing standards be increased for crimes involving a firearm, and sentences and plea agreements be public records?"   Its legislative title is:  "An Act Relating to increasing penalties for armed crimes...."  Laws of 1995, ch. 129. 1
                

In a pro se supplemental brief, Broadaway also challenges the admissibility of his confession, as well as the provision for community placement in his judgment and sentence. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this court, which accepted certification.

ANALYSIS

Article II, Section 19

The state constitution provides that "[n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." Washington Const. art. II, § 19. Two policies underlie the constitutional provision: the prevention of " 'logrolling,' or pushing legislation through by attaching it to other necessary or desirable legislation," and general notice to members of the Legislature and the public of what is contained in the proposed legislation. State v. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d 736, 757, 921 P.2d 514 (1996); see Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 127 Wash.2d 544, 552, 901 P.2d 1028 (1995).

Initiative 159, "Hard Time for Armed Crime," was an initiative to the Legislature which the Legislature enacted in 1995. Broadaway argues that the initiative contains several subjects which are not reflected in the title of the act. He also argues that the relevant title is the ballot title, that the ballot title contains multiple subjects in violation of article II, section 19 of the state constitution, and that none of the initiative's sections dealing with multiple subjects are severable in light of the multiple subjects in the title. The State argues that the relevant title is the legislative title, that all the subjects of the initiative fall within the single subject of the legislative title, and, alternatively, that the deadly weapon enhancement for Broadaway's armed robbery clearly falls within the legislative title's subject and accordingly Broadaway cannot complain about other sections of the initiative which may not fall within the subject matter of the title.

The first question is whether the ballot title or the legislative title is the relevant title. The ballot title of Initiative 159 is "Shall penalties and sentencing standards be increased for crimes involving a firearm, and sentences and plea agreements be public records?" The legislative title is "An Act Relating to increasing penalties for armed crimes...." Laws of 1995, ch. 129.

Broadaway relies on a recent opinion of this court holding that where the people enact legislation through the initiative process, the ballot title of the initiative is the relevant title for purposes of article II, section 19. See Washington Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555, 901 P.2d 1028; see also Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 757, 921 P.2d 514. The court reached this conclusion because not all initiatives have legislative titles and because it is the ballot title with which voters are faced in the voting booth. Washington Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555, 901 P.2d 1028.

However, in Washington Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d 544, 901 P.2d 1028, the people enacted the legislation while here the Legislature enacted Initiative 159. When the Legislature enacts an initiative measure, the legislative title is the relevant title because it, not the ballot title, is the title which appears on the proposed bill before them. For example, when the Secretary of State certified Initiative 159 to the Legislature, it included the legislative title, but did not include the ballot title. See 1 House Journal, 54th Legislature (1995), at 52-66; 1 Senate Journal, 54th Legislature (1995), at 36-45, 156; cf. Final Bill Report, SI 159, 54th Legislature (1995) (without ballot title); House Bill Report, HI 159, 54th Legislature (1995) (same). Under article II, section 19, the notice provided by a title must be " 'notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the law.' " Washington Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555, 901 P.2d 1028 (quoting Young Men's Christian Ass'n (YMCA) v. State, 62 Wash.2d 504, 506, 383 P.2d 497 (1963)). Legislators who must decide whether to enact an initiative measure will be given notice within the meaning of article II, section 19, by the legislative title on the proposed bill.

Next, Broadaway argues that the ballot title is the relevant title because initiative signers may not read the entire text or explanatory statement of the petition and will rely on the ballot title. Thus, a ballot title which omits matters or misrepresents an initiative's actual provisions can mislead a substantial number of people into signing it. See In re Ballot Title for Initiative 333 v. Gorton, 88 Wash.2d 192, 198, 558 P.2d 248, 559 P.2d 562 (1977) ("[w]e can safely assume that not all voters will read the text of the initiative or the explanatory statement")....