State v. Christian

Decision Date06 July 2021
Docket NumberNo. 80045-1-I,80045-1-I
Citation489 P.3d 657
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Charles Freeman CHRISTIAN, Appellant.

Nielsen Koch PLLC, Attorney at Law, 1908 E. Madison St., Seattle, WA, 98122, Eric J. Nielsen, Casey Grannis, Nielsen Koch, PLLC, 1908 E. Madison St., Seattle, WA, 98122-2842, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

Mary Kathleen Webber, Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Prosecuting Attorney Snohomish, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/s 504, Everett, WA, 98201, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Coburn, J.

¶1 A jury convicted Charles Freeman Christian of three domestic violence crimes: assault in the second degree by strangulation or suffocation, assault in the fourth degree, and interfering with the reporting of domestic violence. Christian appeals the assault in the second degree and interfering convictions. Christian contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial; the trial court violated his constitutional right to jury unanimity for the assault in the second degree and interfering convictions; and the State failed to include in its initial charging document, and the trial court failed to instruct the jury, that the interfering crime contains a mens rea element. We affirm and hold that interfering with the reporting of domestic violence is a strict liability crime.

FACTS

¶2 Christian and Sharon La Rae Keith were in a romantic relationship and resided together in Keith's one-bedroom Lynnwood apartment. On December 29, 2018, Keith was lying in bed and heard Christian talking on the phone. Keith heard Christian speak into the phone, "What do you mean you're kicking my son out." Then, Christian left the apartment. Christian returned with his son, Nigel Christian, and Nigel's girlfriend.1

¶3 Around 10:00 a.m., Keith asked Christian to leave, and they got into a verbal argument in the bedroom. Christian went into the living room and told Nigel, "Wherever I am, you're welcome, too." Keith yelled from the bedroom, "[N]o, he's not." Christian yelled to Nigel, "Do you see what I'm going through, do you see what I'm putting up with[?]" Around 12:00 p.m., Keith and Christian began to argue again. Keith yelled at Christian that she wanted him and Nigel to leave.

¶4 Keith grabbed her cell phone and walked toward the bed. Keith later testified she wanted to call 911, but Keith did not tell Christian that was why she grabbed the phone. According to Keith, while she was walking to the bed, Christian yelled, "Bitch, give my phone back," and tried to grab the phone out of Keith's hands. According to Christian, he grabbed for Keith not because he was reaching for the phone but because he was trying to get his diamond chain necklace that he thought Keith held.

¶5 Keith held the phone with both hands, laid on top of the phone and her arms by lying on her stomach on the bed, and began to yell. Christian punched Keith in the back of the head and continued to grab for Keith's hand. At some point, Keith ended up lying on her back. Keith testified that Christian choked her with both of his hands, and the force with which Christian choked Keith made her feel as though she could not breathe and would die.2 Christian got the phone, stopped choking Keith, and stood up. Christian said to Keith, "I could have just killed you and I love you and that's why I didn't."

¶6 Soon after Christian choked Keith, Keith ran to the apartment's balcony and screamed for help.3 Keith wrapped her arms through the balcony's railing, and Christian repeatedly tried to pry Keith off the railing. Christian struck Keith in the back of the head twice before she let go of the railing. Keith made eye contact with the apartment manager. The apartment manager heard Keith screaming and observed Christian strike Keith a few times and "pull her by her hair." The apartment manager then called 911. A visitor to an adjacent apartment building also heard Keith screaming. Concerned that someone needed help, the visitor ran outside Keith's apartment and saw Christian "grabbing" Keith. After Keith let go of the railing, Christian went inside the apartment and Keith stayed on the balcony. When Keith heard police sirens, she ran inside the apartment and told Christian the police were coming. Then, Keith jumped into bed and began to cry.

¶7 Lynnwood Police Officers George Bucholtz and Tanner Hedlund responded to a 911 report of a domestic violence assault. The officers identified Keith's apartment, repeatedly knocked on the door and announced their presence, and ordered the occupants to open the door. The officers could hear someone inside the apartment crying. Between knocks, the officers heard someone inside the apartment reply to their request to open the door by shouting, "No." According to Keith, Christian yelled through the door, "You cannot come in," and told Nigel not to open the door. Christian denied telling Nigel or Keith not to open the door. Christian testified, "I told [Keith], I said answer the door, you're the reason why they're here."

¶8 The officers believed there were exigent circumstances—a person being assaulted—permitting them to enter the apartment without first obtaining a warrant. So, Bucholtz kicked open the apartment door. The officers found Keith crying and lying under a blanket on the bed and Christian standing at the foot of the bed. Christian approached the officers swinging his arms and shouting for the officers to "get out." Bucholtz tried to handcuff Christian by grabbing his right arm, but Christian pulled away. Bucholtz physically restrained Christian, placed him in handcuffs, and removed him from the apartment.

¶9 Once outside, Christian told Bucholtz that Keith "had anxiety and that she freaked out" and yelled at Christian and Nigel. Christian also said that "Keith had gone out onto the balcony in her underwear," and Christian was trying "to get her to come back inside."

¶10 Hedlund stayed in the apartment with Keith. Hedlund observed Keith's injuries including bruises around her neck, bruises and scrapes on her arms, and a red mark on top of her head. Bucholtz returned to the apartment and observed that Keith was still crying, and that she had abrasions around her neck, redness on her arms, and lumps on her head. Keith told the officers that "she attempted to call 911" but Christian threw the cell phone, so Keith went on the "balcony and screamed for help," and then "Christian came outside and hit her on the head." Keith also said that she went outside "hoping that someone could hear her and call 911 for her."

¶11 The State charged Christian with three domestic violence crimes: (1) assault in the second degree by strangulation and suffocation, (2) assault in the fourth degree, and (3) interfering with the reporting of domestic violence.

¶12 Before trial, the trial court granted Christian's motion to "[e]xclude all reference to Mr. Christian's current or any previous incarceration." The trial court also ordered that

no reference be made by counsel or any witness to matters previously excluded by the Court. ER 103(c), 401. Similarly, order that counsel for both parties make their witnesses aware of the pretrial rulings so that the witnesses are careful in their testimony and do not violate a court order that could potentially result in a mistrial or prejudice to either party. Witnesses should be shown a written copy of these rulings if such written copy exists.

¶13 During trial, on cross-examination, defense counsel asked Keith, "Now, Mr. Christian doesn't live there anymore; correct?" In response, Keith testified, "Mr. Christian's in jail .... He's in jail." A few minutes later, the trial court took a recess and excused the jury. During the recess, the trial court asked the parties if they had any issues to address. They said no. Later, defense counsel asked Keith what happened to Christian's diamond chain. Keith testified, "If it's not with him in jail it's in a box in the closet where all his other stuff is in my apartment." Before going on a lunch recess, the trial court gave the defense another opportunity to raise issues and counsel declined.

¶14 After the lunch recess, Christian asserted the State violated the court's pretrial motions. The State conceded to failing to instruct Keith not to mention Christian's current or previous incarceration. Christian then moved for a mistrial.

¶15 The State objected to Christian's motion for a mistrial by arguing Christian did not timely object and he waived the issue. The State also argued the prejudice to Christian was minimal because there was evidence that the police arrested Christian at the scene. The State argued, in the alternative, that Christian opened the door to the testimony and the testimony did not violate Christian's right to a fair trial. The State asked for an admonition or curative instruction. Christian argued he did not waive the issue. Christian argued a curative instruction was insufficient because the combination of having police officers present in the courtroom during trial and Keith's references to Christian being in jail would allow jurors to speculate as to why the police officers were present. The trial court responded, "There's no speculation at this point. There was speculation before the testimony. There's no speculation now." Christian then argued the combination of the police presence and Keith's testimony would further allow the jurors to speculate that Christian was a "particularly dangerous person." The trial court noted that when two uniformed police officers are in a courtroom throughout the trial, the jurors could infer the defendant is in custody. Noting that the officers were present throughout Christian's trial, the trial court found the officers’ presence did not warrant granting a mistrial.

¶16 The trial court denied Christian's motion for a mistrial but offered to provide a curative jury instruction. Christian proposed, and the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Lucas-Vicente
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2022
    ...from an official proceeding. We disagree. ¶17 The alternative means analysis does not apply to subalternatives. State v. Christian, 18 Wash. App. 2d 185, 202, 489 P.3d 657, review denied, 198 Wash.2d 1024, 497 P.3d 394 (2021). When a statute provides alternative ways to satisfy each alterna......
  • State v. Lucas-Vicente
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2022
    ...proceeding. We disagree. The alternative means analysis does not apply to subalternatives. State v. Christian, 18 Wn.App. 2d 185, 202, 489 P.3d 657, review denied, 198 Wn.2d 1024, 497 P.3d 394 (2021). When a statute provides alternative ways to satisfy each alternative means (i.e., "a 'mean......
  • State v. Lucas-Vicente
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2022
    ... ... and (3) inducing Samol to absent herself from an official ... proceeding. We disagree ...          The ... alternative means analysis does not apply to subalternatives ... State v. Christian, 18 Wn.App. 2d 185, 202, 489 P.3d ... 657, review denied, 198 Wn.2d 1024, 497 P.3d 394 ... (2021). When a statute provides alternative ways to satisfy ... each alternative means (i.e., "a 'means within [a] ... means'"), the alternative means doctrine does not ... ...
  • State v. Flores
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 2021
    ...to be expected.’ "47 Courts have viewed the impact of future prosecutions differently.48 Specifically, as this court noted in State v. Christian, "Recently, courts address this factor by looking at the number of appellate cases [and if] it is ‘reasonable to infer that criminal prosecutions ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT