State v. Everybodytalksabout

Decision Date07 February 2002
Docket NumberNo. 70700-6.,70700-6.
Citation145 Wash.2d 456,39 P.3d 294,145 Wn.2d 456
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Darrell D. EVERYBODYTALKSABOUT, Petitioner.

Nielsen, Broman & Associates, James Robert Dixon, Seattle, for Petitioner.

Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Deborah Dwyer, Deputy, Ann Summers, Deputy, Seattle, for Respondent.

SMITH, J.

Petitioner Darrell D. Everybodytalksabout seeks review of an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which in a divided opinion affirmed his King County Superior Court conviction for first degree murder and second degree murder under RCW 9A.32.030(1)(b) and (c).1 We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The questions presented in this case are: (1) whether inadmissible "acts" under ER 404(b) are limited to bad acts, disgraceful acts or unpopular acts; (2) whether evidence was improperly excluded from Petitioner's second trial following a mistrial because of perjured testimony of the State's principal witness; and (3) whether Respondent State of Washington mismanaged Petitioner's case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS2

Petitioner Darrell D. Everybodytalksabout was jointly charged with Phillip Lara Lopez by information filed in the King County Superior Court on February 17, 1997 with the crime of murder in the first degree, the information reading:

That the defendants DARRELL EVERYBODY-TALKSABOUT and PHILIP LARA LOPEZ, and each of them, in King County, Washington, during a period of time intervening between February 3rd, 1996 through February 4, 1996, while committing and attempting to commit the crime of Robbery in the First Degree, and in the course of and in furtherance of said crime and in immediate flight therefrom, did cause the death of Rigel Jones, a human being who was not a participant in the crime, and who died on or about February 4, 1996;

Contrary to RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c), and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.[3]

On April 11, 1997 the Prosecuting Attorney filed an amended information which added Count II in the alternative charging Darrell [D.] Everybodytalksabout and Phillip Lara Lopez with the crime of murder in the second degree, a crime of the same or similar character as another crime charged in the information, as follows:

That the defendants DARRELL EVERYBODY-TALKSABOUT and PHILLIP LARA LOPEZ, and each of them, in King County, Washington, during a period of time intervening between February 3rd, 1996 through February 4, 1996, while committing and attempting to commit the crime of Assault in the Second Degree, and in the course of and in furtherance of said crime and in immediate flight therefrom, did cause the death on or about February 4, 1996, of Rigel Jones, a human being who was not a participant in the crime.
Contrary to RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b), and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.[4]

On May 5, 1997 the Prosecuting Attorney filed a second amended information against Petitioner Everybodytalksabout and Phillip Lara Lopez adding to each Count I and Count II previously charged a deadly weapons charge accusing them "at [the time of the offense] of being armed with a deadly weapon, to-wit; a knife, under the authority of RCW 9.94A.125 and 9.94A.310."5

The case proceeded to a jury trial against both defendants before the Honorable Larry A. Jordan on May 7, 1997.6 Following discovery that the State's principal witness, one Richard Prevost, committed blatant perjury when he falsely claimed he was present at the scene at the time of the crime and testified in great and specific detail implicating Petitioner Everybodytalksabout, the court granted a motion for mistrial as to Petitioner Everybodytalksabout on May 22, 1997.7

A second jury trial proceeded against Petitioner Everybodytalksabout alone under the original second amended information before the Honorable Donald D. Haley on July 22, 1997. The jury on July 25, 1997 returned verdicts of "guilty" of murder in the first degree and "guilty" of murder in the second degree, with a special verdict finding that Petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of each offense.8

On September 12, 1997 Judge Haley, after concluding that Count II merged with Count I for sentencing purposes, sentenced Petitioner to a maximum term of life9 and community placement for two years.10

On September 29, 1997 Petitioner gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, Division One.11 On November 13, 2000 the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed the conviction. On January 13, 2001 Petitioner sought review by this court which we granted on July 10, 2001.

On February 3, 1996 Rigel Jones, a 24-year-old young man, parked his Toyota pickup truck under the Alaskan Way viaduct in downtown Seattle and spent the evening with friends visiting nightclubs in Pioneer Square. Shortly after 4:00 AM on February 4, 1996 he was found dead next to his truck in a parking lot. He had been stabbed twice in the chest by a single-edged instrument and his wallet, pager and jacket were missing. Seattle police authorities were unable to identify any suspects until, approximately one year after Mr. Jones' death, one Richard Prevost came forth with a purported eyewitness account. In a recorded statement, he told Detective Eugene Ramirez that he was with Phillip Lara Lopez and Petitioner Everybodytalksabout on the night Mr. Jones was killed. He claimed that Mr. Lopez and Petitioner assaulted and robbed Mr. Jones, leaving him on the ground. Mr. Prevost did not say that Mr. Jones was stabbed. However, he did say Petitioner carried a pocket knife with a long blade and that Petitioner admitted he might have killed Mr. Jones. Mr. Prevost's statement was the basis upon which Mr. Lopez and Petitioner were ultimately charged in the death of Mr. Jones with alternative counts of first degree murder and second degree murder, each with a deadly weapon enhancement.

After their arrests, Mr. Lopez and Petitioner gave separate recorded statements to Seattle police detectives. Mr. Lopez said he and Petitioner were present at the murder scene, but stated that Petitioner stabbed Mr. Jones. When the detectives questioned Petitioner, he first denied having anything to do with the stabbing. Detective Eugene Ramirez then told Petitioner that several people had implicated him in the stabbing and played a portion of Mr. Lopez' recorded statement to him. Petitioner then responded that on the night of the stabbing, he and Mr. Lopez had engaged in a drug transaction under the viaduct with a buyer who refused to pay. Petitioner said he told Mr. Lopez to get the money from the buyer, that Mr. Lopez returned with money and a jacket he did not have on earlier and that Mr. Lopez also had blood on his shirt. Petitioner in his statement insisted he had nothing to do with any altercation and that he did not witness a fight between Mr. Lopez and Mr. Jones. He also mentioned that "Yolanda" and "Mary" were with them that night. The detectives contacted Ms. Yolanda Ramirez-Lopez, who denied any knowledge of the incident.

After the mistrial following discovery that the State's principal witness, Richard Prevost, was actually in jail in Skagit County on the date he claimed he was present in Seattle and witnessed the incident, at Petitioner's second trial Ms. Ramirez-Lopez (having admitted in the first trial that she was with Mr. Lopez and Petitioner the night Mr. Jones was stabbed) testified that she, Phillip Lara Lopez and Petitioner were drinking beer by the waterfront on the night of the incident; that when they ran out of beer, they left the waterfront and walked North under the viaduct; that they noticed a young man in the parking lot; that Petitioner walked toward the young man; that Mr. Lopez instructed her to "keep walking" and then joined Petitioner; and that, as she walked away, she heard loud voices and turned around to observe them "messing around"; that she kept walking and Mr. Lopez and Petitioner caught up with her a short time later; that Petitioner said they had to "get out of here"; and that Mr. Lopez had blood on his hands, wiped them on his shirt and threw the shirt away. Ms. Ramirez-Lopez testified that the next morning Mr. Lopez told her he had been in a fight with a "white boy" and that he might have killed him. She could not remember the specific date, but she thought it was sometime during the winter of 1996 in January, February or March. She admitted that she became intoxicated daily during that period and that her memory was sometimes affected by her drinking.

At Petitioner's second trial, the trial court permitted the State to introduce the testimony of Seattle Police Detective Jeffrey D. Martin that, as a patrol officer in Pioneer Square from the middle of 1992 to the beginning of 1996, he often saw Petitioner and Mr. Lopez together in Pioneer Square and that Petitioner would usually carry conversations with the officer while Mr. Lopez stood back or walked away.

The pertinent testimony of Detective Martin in response to questions by the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney follows:12

Q. Detective Martin, from your personal experience in Pioneer Square, are you aware of any association between Mr. Everybodytalksabout and Mr. Lopez?

A. Yes, I am. Q. What did you notice along those lines walking around down there?

A. During routine patrol business, I would see the two on a continual basis.

Q. And approximately how often would you see them together?

A. It's hard to say exact numbers, but if I would see Mr. Everybodytalksabout, at least 50 percent of the time Mr. Lopez would either be directly with him or in the same general vicinity.

Q. Did you ever contact the two of them together?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have conversations with them?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you contacted them, did one of the other do more of the talking?
A. Yes.
Q. And who
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
214 cases
  • Saldivar v. Momah
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2008
    ...of a person to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.20 State v. Everybodytalksabout, 145 Wash.2d 456, 466, 39 P.3d 294 (2002). Although inadmissible to prove propensity on a particular occasion, evidence of prior acts may be admissible for o......
  • State v. Rowland
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2018
    ... ... facilitate the commission of the crime. RCW 9A.08.020(3); RCW ... 9A.52.020(1). The State must prove more than a person's ... physical presence at the crime scene and assent to establish ... accomplice liability. State v. Everybodytalksabout , ... 145 Wn.2d 456, 472-73, 39 P.3d 294 (2002) ... A ... person is guilty of first degree burglary if, with intent to ... commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or ... she enters or remains unlawfully in a building and if, in ... ...
  • State v. Yusuf
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2022
    ...P.3d 698.50 Id. at 223, 289 P.3d 698.51 State v. Powell, 166 Wash.2d 73, 84, 206 P.3d 321 (2009) (citing State v. Everybodytalksabout, 145 Wash.2d 456, 468-69, 39 P.3d 294 (2002) ).52 RAP 2.5(a).53 Yusuf also argues the trial court misapplied ER 403 because it "fail[ed] to weigh or balance ......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 8, 2018
    ...is corroborated, it is not error to refuse a cautionary instruction.") (internal quotations and citation omitted); State v. Everybodytalksabout, 39 P.3d 294, 307 (Wash. 2002) ("Cautionary instructions must be given where the testimony of an accomplice is uncorroborated."); Linse, 286 N.W.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...627, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 983 (2005): 24.5(1)(f) State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 298 P.3d 724 (2013): 12.3 State v. Everybodytalksabout, 145 Wn.2d 456, 39 P.3d 294 (2002): 9.12 State v. Fagalde, 85 Wn.2d 730, 539 P.2d 86 (1975): 11.4(1) State v. Ferguson, 100 Wn.2d 131, 667 P.2d 68 (1983):......
  • § 9.12 Correcting and Supplementing The Record After Transmittal to Appellate Court
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 9 Record on Review
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Edwards, 114 Wn.App. 625, 630 n.1, 60 P.3d 601 (2002), review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1028 (2003); see also State v. Everybody talks about, 145 Wn.2d 456, 473-74, 39 P.3d 294 (2002) (accepting additional record on motion two days before oral argument, specifically noting the requirements of a ......

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