State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 01 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 45764-4-II,45764-4-II
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOB M. EDWARDS, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOB M. EDWARDS, Appellant.

No. 45764-4-II

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

March 1, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

BJORGEN, A.C.J. — Job Mitchell Edwards appeals his convictions for unlawful imprisonment, felony harassment, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and unlawful use of a building for drug purposes. He also appeals nine firearm enhancements of which three are attached to each conviction for unlawful imprisonment, felony harassment, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

Job argues that (1) the trial court erred when it declined to issue his requested instruction on self-defense of persons and property, WPIC 17.02,¹ on the unlawful imprisonment charge, (2) there is insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions and firearm enhancements, (3) it was improper for the trial court to allow evidence of his prior acts of selling drugs without conducting an ER 404(b) analysis, (4) the trial court abused its discretion when it found evidence of a gas mask, bullet-resistant vest, and a knife relevant to his charges, and (5) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct when he made several improper comments during closing argument and rebuttal.

We hold that (1) the trial court erred by declining to instruct on WPIC 17.02 on the unlawful imprisonment charge when substantial evidence in the record supported that self-defense theory, (2) sufficient evidence supports all the remaining convictions and firearm enhancements, (3) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of Job's prior acts of selling, but such error was harmless, (4) the gas mask and bullet-resistant vest were not relevant, but any error in admitting this evidence was harmless, (5) the knife was relevant, and (6) although the prosecutor's comments were improper, a jury instruction would have cured any prejudice, and Job is deemed to have waived any error.

Accordingly, we (1) reverse and vacate Job's conviction of unlawful imprisonment and three firearm enhancements attached to that conviction and (2) affirm Job's remaining convictions and six of the firearm enhancements.

FACTS

Job, his brother, Michael Edwards, and his brother's girlfriend, Krystal Freitas, all lived together in a split level house.² Michael and Freitas lived upstairs, while Job lived downstairs. All three were involved in a "business" of selling oxycodone. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 156-57. The three would combine their pills, and Michael and Freitas would then sell them to customers.

On October 25, 2012, Freitas and Colton Geeson arranged a deal for Freitas to sell 50 oxycodone pills to Geeson. Before arriving at the house, Geeson informed Freitas that he was bringing "DJ"³—a person whom Freitas had never met and who would be buying the pills. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 165, 172-73. Upon DJ and Geeson's arrival, Michael and Freitas had them come inside to the upstairs portion of the home where Michael and Freitas resided.

When Freitas asked for the money, DJ responded that he wanted to see the pills, which Freitas showed him. DJ then pulled his .45 caliber Taurus handgun and put it to Michael's head, demanding the pills. Michael and DJ immediately engaged in a struggle, and Michael screamed for help from Job who was downstairs in his bedroom. Job grabbed his .40 caliber Glock handgun and met DJ on the stairs. As DJ raised his right arm, Job fired several shots into DJ, killing him.

Shortly after the bullets were fired, Michael retrieved his Benelli 12 gauge shotgun from his bedroom and pointed it at Geeson. Michael told Geeson, "I got to kill you now. I'm sorry. I got to." RP at 99. Although the evidence conflicts, some suggests Job was present or heard this threat when it was made.⁴ Geeson then stripped off some of his clothing and showed Michael that he was unarmed. Michael then went downstairs. Geeson went outside through a door on the top floor and told an individual next door to call the police. Michael came back upstairs, pointed the shotgun at Geeson, and told him to get back inside. Either Michael or Job then held Geeson at gun point inside the home while Geeson proposed that he would take DJ's body and would never tell the police about the incident.

Agreeing to the proposal, Michael instructed Job to hold Geeson at gunpoint while Michael dragged DJ's body downstairs toward the garage in their home. Then, after retrieving DJ's Taurus handgun from his body, Michael led Geeson outside with the handgun to retrieve DJ's car and pull it into their garage. Job opened the garage for Geeson to pull in the car, pointing his Glock handgun at Geeson and waving him into the garage. After Geeson pulled the car in, the garage door would not close. Geeson then ran away through the garage opening without pursuit by Job or Michael.

Geeson eventually alerted someone, who called the police and reported the incident. Michael called the police as well. Police later found Michael's Benelli shotgun, Job's Glock handgun, DJ's Taurus handgun, and also an SKS assault rifle in Job's bedroom. Police alsofound a prescription bottle dated October 22, 2012 containing 30 oxycodone pills with Job's identifying information on it.

The jury found Job guilty of unlawful imprisonment, felony harassment, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and unlawful use of a building for drug purposes. The jury also entered verdicts for nine firearm enhancements of which three are attached to each conviction for unlawful imprisonment, felony harassment, and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Job appeals, claiming several substantive and procedural errors.

ANALYSIS

I. FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON WPIC 17.02

Job argues that his unlawful imprisonment conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred in denying the instruction he requested based on WPIC 17.02. For the reasons below, we agree that Job was entitled to have WPIC 17.02 submitted to the jury, since substantial evidence in the record supported that self-defense theory.

Job asked the trial court to issue the following instruction based on WPIC 17.02:

It is a defense to a charge of Unlawful Imprisonment that the force used was lawful as defined in this instruction

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when used by a person who reasonably believes that he is about to be injured or by someone lawfully aiding a person who he reasonably believes is about to be injured in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person, and when the force is not more than is necessary.

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when used in preventing or attempting to prevent a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in that person's possession, and when the force is not more than is necessary.

The person using the force may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the person, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time of the incident.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not lawful. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty as to this charge.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 750.

The trial court denied this instruction stating, "I think I have got an obligation not to confuse them." RP at 481

Because if you look at just the heading of 17.02, it's defense of self, others or property defense, as opposed to 17.03, it's lawful force, detention of a person. So 17.03 really applies to [Geeson] because that's who alleged to be the victim of the kidnapping. And 17.02 is defending self, others or properties which applies to CJ [sic].

So I think that confuses the jury, to give 17.02 as well as 17.03, so that's my inclination, is to give that one.

RP at 481. Later, the court expanded on its reasoning for denying the WPIC 17.02 instruction.

17.02 is the self-defense instruction. And as I indicated, I gave 17.03 plus some of the instructions that go with 17.02 and 17.03.

With regard to that lawful instruction, I am convinced the more I look at that WPIC instruction that that instruction is not applicable to this case and it' s actually, if you read the instruction, that instruction alone, it's kind of a redundant instruction. It really doesn't tell you anything.

RP at 500.

The trial court instead instructed the jury as follows, based on WPIC 17.03:

It is a defense to a charge of . . . Felony Harassment that the force used was lawful as defined in this instruction.

A person who lawfully possesses a building may use force to detain someone who unlawfully enters or remains in the building when:

(1) it is reasonably used for that purpose; and

(2) the manner and duration of such detention is reasonable to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises; and

(3) the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be open to members of the public; and(4) the person using the force employs such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the person, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time of and prior to the incident.

The State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not lawful. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty as to this charge.

CP at 703.

A defendant is entitled to have his or her theory of the case submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions when substantial evidence in the record supports that theory....