State v. Classen
| Decision Date | 05 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 35240-1-II.,35240-1-II. |
| Citation | 143 Wn. App. 45,176 P.3d 582 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Norman CLASSEN, Appellant. |
Mark W. Muenster, Attorney at Law, Vancouver, WA, for Appellant.
Michael C. Kinnie, Attorney at Law, Vancouver, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 James Classen appeals his conviction for first degree murder of his wife. He argues that (1) the trial court improperly limited his cross examination of State expert witness Dr. Barry Ward about a conversation Ward allegedly had with Classen's son concerning the degree of murder Ward believed was appropriate; (2) testimony about his (Classen's) pretrial behavior while in custody violated his right to a fair trial; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument when he misstated the law by calling manslaughter an "accident"; and (4) the reconstructed record is insufficient for review. We affirm.
¶ 2 At about two o'clock one February 2005 morning, Dr. James Classen went to the home of his estranged wife, Eveann Classen (Eveann),1 who was sleeping. Using scissors from the sewing room, Classen stabbed Eveann an estimated 100 times.
¶ 3 Classen then drove to the family's cabin, called and told his friend Stanley Grenz that he had killed Eveann, and asked Grenz to come to the cabin. Grenz and another friend, Bruce Adams, went to the cabin, found Classen, and called 911.
¶ 4 Officers Tim Converse and David Garcia arrived at the cabin and arrested Classen for murdering Eveann. Classen told them the clothes he was wearing earlier and the scissors were at the cabin. Deputy Monty Buettner later found the scissors, clothes with reddish brown stains, and a Ziploc bag containing a stained towel on the cabin grounds.
¶ 5 Meanwhile, the sheriffs office dispatched Deputies John Horch, Chad Rothenberger, and Sergeant Steve Shea to Eveann's home. They found Eveann lying on the floor. A paramedic on the scene confirmed that she was dead. The medical examiner concluded that Eveann had died from blood loss and asphyxia sometime during the night.
¶ 6 The police transported Classen to the Skamania County jail, where he waived his Miranda2 rights and, in a videotaped statement, confessed to having killed his wife.3
¶ 7 The State charged Classen with first degree murder.
¶ 8 The trial court ordered Classen admitted to Western State Hospital for a 15-day evaluation to determine his capacity to form an intent to commit first degree murder. Western State's sanity commission, which comprised psychiatrist Dr. Nitin Karnik and psychologist Dr. Barry Ward, concluded that (1) Classen suffered from major depressive disorder, (2) he had the capacity to engage in "goal-directed conduct," and (3) he could "reflect before purposeful action."
¶ 9 The State moved in limine to restrict Classen's cross examination of Dr. Ward. Classen's counsel planned (1) to cross examine Dr. Ward about a conversation he had allegedly had with Classen's son, Maurice Classen (Maurice); and (2) to present Maurice's testimony to impeach Dr. Ward. Classen's counsel told the trial court, (1) "What I believe [Ward] said to Maurice Classen runs contrary to the opinions he's gonna offer this jury, where he said he believes this is more appropriately a murder two, which in shorthand is his way of telling someone that he thinks there's grave questions about whether he had the capacity to premeditate," Report of Proceedings (RP) at 609 (emphasis added); and (2) RP at 611 (emphasis added).
¶ 10 In essence, defense counsel told the trial court that he intended to offer Maurice's testimony that Dr. Ward had told him Classen should be charged with second degree murder instead of first degree murder. The State argued this hearsay opinion was inadmissible because it would invade the province of the jury. The trial court reserved ruling on the admissibility of this statement, explaining that admissibility would depend on the phrasing of the parties' questions and witnesses' answers at trial.
¶ 11 In its case in chief, the State presented testimony from the arresting officers, detectives, and Clark County medical examiner Dr. Dennis Wickham. It also played Classen's videotaped confession for the jury.4
¶ 12 Classen's defense was that he had been unable to form the requisite intent or to premeditate killing his wife because of his bipolar disorder. He called psychologist Dr. David Shapiro, who testified that Classen suffered from bipolar disorder and was in a dissociative state at the time of the offense. Classen also called pharmacologist Dr. Robert Julien, who testified that the anti-depressive medications Classen was taking at the time of the homicide could cause a "manic flip" in a bipolar patient, precipitating a manic state.
¶ 13 On rebuttal, the State presented Dr. Karnik, the Western State psychiatrist who had evaluated Classen, and Dr. Ward, the Western State psychologist who had evaluated Classen with Dr. Karnik, to counter Classen's claim that he suffered from bipolar disorder and, therefore, was incapable of forming an intent to premeditate murder. Dr. Karnik testified that (1) a person suffering from bipolar disorder would typically "act out" in custody, but (2) Classen continued to take the same medications while in custody pending trial and was "doing well," Dr. Ward testified that (1) Classen showed no symptoms of bipolar disorder during his pretrial evaluation, (2) Classen's behavior over the previous 14 months in custody was an important source of collateral information for purposes of diagnosis, and (3) a person with bipolar disorder would invariably have problems in custody.
¶ 14 Outside the jury's presence, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of Maurice's proposed impeachment testimony. According to Classen's oral offer of proof, Dr. Ward had told Maurice that Classen should be charged with second degree murder instead of first degree murder. But Dr. Ward testified he was "certain" he did not tell Maurice that he (Ward) thought Classen should have been charged with second, rather than first degree murder.5 RP at 842-43. Dr. Ward did acknowledge however, having discussed with Maurice the possibility of a plea bargain; and he remembered Maurice "expressing a hope that this would be murder two versus a murder one," but that he (Dr. Ward) "saw that not as a possible outcome at trial." RP at 848.
¶ 15 The trial court found that in order to admit this proffered hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement, Dr. Ward would first have to testify in front of the jury about the degree of murder he believed was appropriate for Classen. The trial court then ruled that Dr. Ward's opinion about the appropriate degree of murder would invade the jury's province. Accordingly, the trial court limited Classen's cross examination by preventing questions about Dr. Ward's alleged "seconddegree murder" statement to Maurice, thereby excluding Maurice's proposed impeachment testimony.
¶ 16 Over Classen's objection, the State concluded its rebuttal by calling three custodial officers from the Clark County Jail, where Classen had been incarcerated pending trial. The custodial officers testified that Classen had exhibited no behavioral problems during his 14 months in custody; nor did he receive infractions for even minor offenses.
¶ 17 The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of first and second degree murder and first and second manslaughter. The instruction for first degree manslaughter described the crime as "when [a person] . . . recklessly causes the death of another person." The instruction for second degree manslaughter said that "a person' commits the crime ... when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person . . ." Clerk's. Papers (CP) at 101, 105. During closing, the prosecutor argued:
Manslaughter instructions? Manslaughter. The defendant actually is trying to say he should be convicted only of manslaughter. Manslaughter is an accident. You look at the instructions on manslaughter it talks about acting recklessly for first degree, or negligently for second degree. Those are concepts of accident.
Where's the accident here? This is not an accident. He's not accidentally plunging the scissors in his wife's face over and over and over. This is nothing like a manslaughter, it's not even close.
RP at 951. Classen neither objected nor requested a curative instruction.
¶ 18 The jury returned a guilty verdict for first degree murder.
¶ 19 After the jury's verdict, the trial court discovered that, due to a technical error, the audio feed for the courtroom video camera6 had not been recording for three days of trial. This discovery occurred seven days after the unrecorded testimony.
¶ 20 Acting under RAP 9.4, the parties and the trial court reconstructed the record, using notes and recollections of the clerk, bailiff, both parties, and intermittent footage of courtroom proceedings produced by the news media. The parties signed an Agreed Report of. Proceedings, stating the reconstruction was accurate to the best of each party's recollection, and the trial court signed its approval of the reconstruction. The trial court also recreated a verbatim transcript of one and one-half days using the intermittent footage from the news media. Nonetheless, Classen's counsel filed a declaration stating that, in his opinion, the parties were unable to reconstruct the record sufficiently to satisfy due process.
¶ 21 Classen moved for a new trial based on (1) the trial court's having limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Trice
... ... comments and fails to show on appeal that the comments were ... so "'flagrant and ill intentioned'" that a ... curative instruction could not have cured any allegedly ... resulting prejudice. [ 4 ] Coleman , 152 Wn.App. at 570 ... (quoting State v. Classen , 143 Wn.App. 45, 64-65, ... 176 P.3d 582, review denied , 164 Wn.2d 1016 (2008)) ... Second, Trice cannot show prejudice "'in the context ... of the entire record and the circumstances at ... trial,'" which overwhelmingly show his guilt ... Coleman , 152 Wn.App ... ...
-
State v. Halverson
...review; and (4) the degree of resultant prejudice from the missing or reconstructed record, if any, to the defendant.State v. Classen, 143 Wash.App. 45, 57, 176 P.3d 582,review denied,164 Wash.2d 1016, 195 P.3d 88 (2008). ¶ 25 The absence of a portion of the record is not reversible unless ......
-
State v. Burton
... ... 884] claim of ineffective counsel for failure to object), even the entire loss of the pertinent record may not prevent effective review. State v. Putman, 65 Wash.App. 606, 611, 829 P.2d 787 (1992), review denied, 122 Wash.2d 1015, 863 P.2d 73 (1993). 40 In State v. Classen, the court reviewed several decisions considering whether reconstructed records were sufficient for review. 143 Wash.App. 45, 5557, 176 P.3d 582, review denied, 164 Wash.2d 1016, 195 P.3d 88 (2008). From those cases, the court distilled the following factors which, among others, apply in ... ...
-
State v. Trice
...a curative instruction could not have cured any allegedly resulting prejudice.4 Coleman, 152 Wn. App. at 570 (quoting State v. Classen, 143 Wn. App. 45, 64-65, 176 P.3d 582, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1016 (2008)). Second, Trice cannot show prejudice "'in the context of the entire record and ......
-
Table of Cases
...563 P.2d 1253 (1977): 23.3 State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 24 P.3d 1006, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1000 (2001): 11.9(2) State v. Classen, 143 Wn. App. 45, 176 P.3d 582, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1016 (2008): 9.5(1), 9.7(4) State v. Clausen, 139 Wash. 389, 214 P. 63 (1923): 22.2(5) State v. Claus......
-
§ 9.5 Verbatim Report of Proceedings
...to prepare a narrative report or agreed report of proceedings and have discrepancies resolved by the trial court); State v. Classen, 143 Wn.App. 45, 57, 176 P.3d 582 (in addition to the verbatim report of proceedings, the court accepted parties' agreed report of proceedings of missing porti......
-
§ 9.7 Agreed Report of Proceedings
...report of proceedings arranged in a meaningful form, a narrative statement, or some of both." 86 Wn.2d at 1186; see State v. Classen, 143 Wn.App. 45, 57, 176 P.3d 582 (2008) (agreed report of proceedings included the verbatim report of proceedings of most of the 16-day trial, an agreed verb......