State v. Goins
| Decision Date | 30 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 48437-1-I.,48437-1-I. |
| Citation | 54 P.3d 723,113 Wash. App. 723 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Matthew Glen GOINS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Ian M. Goodhew, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Eric J. Nielsen, Nielsen, Broman & Koch, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
Matthew Glen Goins was charged with a single count of second degree assault with intent to commit indecent liberties. The State also charged that the crime was committed with sexual motivation. By way of general verdict, a jury found Goins guilty of second degree assault as charged. However, in the special verdict, the jury declined to find that Goins committed the offense with sexual motivation. Goins argues that these irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts compel reversal and acquittal, and that if the issue was not preserved for this appeal, his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it before the jury was discharged. The State contends that Goins waived his right to appeal the inconsistent verdicts by failing to object below, that Goins has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice because substantial evidence supports the conviction, and that Goins's trial counsel likely had a strategic reason for failing to object. We agree with the State and affirm the conviction.
Matthew Goins and his friend Steve Haworth went out drinking on the evening of May 17, 2000. In the early morning hours of May 18, Haworth asked Goins if he would give him a ride to the apartment of a friend, Angela Z. Z was at home and awake with her young son and boyfriend when Goins and Haworth arrived at approximately 4 a.m. Z testified that Haworth was drunk and that Goins had been drinking. Z's boyfriend left to go to work. Goins and Haworth also left for a period of time, and then returned.
Haworth went into Z's bathroom and became sick, leaving Goins and Z alone in the living room. Goins started asking Z questions about her boyfriend. Z testified that Goins stood up, walked over to her, and tried to kiss her. She said that she pushed him away, and he sat back down and did not talk to her for a little while. Z sat in silence watching television and waiting for Haworth to get out of the bathroom. Eventually she fell asleep. Z testified that when she woke up, she found Goins in her bedroom, urinating on her bed.
Shocked by Goins's behavior, Z asked, "What are you doing?" and pounded on the bathroom door in an attempt to rouse Haworth. Z said that Goins tried again to kiss her. Z again pushed him, but this time he did not move away. She ran to the front door in an attempt to get out of the apartment, but Goins forced the door shut and asked Z, "Do I make you nervous?" Z tried again to wake up Haworth, but Goins grabbed her by her arms and forced her into the bedroom. Z was scared and screamed for Haworth.
Z said that Goins shut the bedroom door with his foot and forced her down onto the bed. She said that she tried to fight off Goins by turning and kicking him, but Goins pinned down her arms and legs and tried to lift up her T-shirt. Z fought back by pulling her shirt back down and wrestling with Goins's hands. She testified that Goins tried to touch her upper thighs, but she continued to fight him off, at one point punching him in the face. Z pleaded with Goins to stop, telling him that she was pregnant, but to no avail. Z screamed for Haworth to wake up.
Z said that Goins suddenly jumped off of her, as Haworth struggled to enter the bedroom. Goins tried to block Haworth from entering by holding the door shut. Haworth forced his way into the bedroom, and Goins ran out into the living room. Haworth yelled, "What is going on!" and Z responded that Goins had tried to rape her.
As Goins tried to gather up his belongings, Z walked out the front door of her apartment and started banging on her neighbor's door in order to call the police. Goins then ran out of the apartment and drove away in his car. Z's neighbor, Shari Platt, answered the door and allowed Z to call the police. Z said that she had marks on her wrist, neck, foot and face from the struggle. At trial, Platt confirmed that Z had appeared at her door on the morning of May 18, crying and upset. She said that Z told her that she had almost been raped, and asked if she could use the phone to call the police.
Haworth's testimony at trial was consistent with Z's. He said that he passed out in the bathroom and woke to the sound of Z's screams. He said that Goins tried to block him from entering the bedroom. When he managed to get in, he found Z sobbing uncontrollably and looking "roughed up." Haworth said that eventually Z calmed down enough to tell him that Goins had tried to rape her.
Goins testified in his own defense at trial. He admitted that he tried to kiss Z while Haworth was in the bathroom, and that she rebuffed his advances. He testified that he followed Z into the bedroom and tried again to kiss her. He said that he might have touched Z's shoulder. Goins testified that after his second attempt, Z "flipped out" and punched him in the face. Goins claimed that he had to grab Z to keep her from hitting him, and that the bathroom door was accidentally shut during the struggle. Goins admitted that he pushed Z onto the bed, but said that it was an accident. He denied that he had urinated on Z's bed. Goins said that he told Haworth that Z was "tripping" and then left the apartment.
Goins was charged under RCW 9A.36.021(e) with second degree assault with intent to commit the felony of indecent liberties. The State also charged that the crime was committed with sexual motivation, under RCW 9.94A.127.1 The "to-convict" instruction provided that the State had to prove the following elements:
The jury also was instructed that "[a] person commits the crime of indecent liberties when he knowingly causes another person who is not his spouse to have sexual contact with him or another by forcible compulsion." Id. at 19. "Sexual contact" was defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party." Id. at 20.
The jury was also given a special verdict form, which asked: "At the time the defendant committed the crime of Assault in the Second Degree, did the defendant commit the crime with sexual motivation?" Id. at 34.
The jury was instructed that "[s]exual motivation means that one of the purposes for which the defendant committed the crime was for the purpose of his or her sexual gratification." Id. at 22.
During deliberations, the jury made several inquiries regarding unanimity. The first inquiry read:
(1) We are unable to agree unanimously on a conviction for Second Degree Assault (11-1 to convict). Most of the 11 are unwilling to drop to a fourth degree conviction. Are we hung?
(2) The single holdout against the Second Degree Conviction cannot make a determination from the evidence given. If he consents, can he be excused and the alternate be called?
Id. at 31. The trial court's response is not in the record. However, the jury continued to deliberate. The second inquiry, sent a little over an hour later, read: Id. at 33. The trial court judge responded by telling the jury to reread the instructions and to continue deliberating.
The jury eventually returned a verdict of guilty on the second degree assault charge and answered "no" on the sexual motivation special verdict. Defense counsel made no motion regarding the inconsistent verdicts. Goins was sentenced, and now appeals.
An appellate court may refuse to review any claim of error that was not raised in the trial court. RAP 2.5(a); State v. Scott, 110 Wash.2d 682, 686, 757 P.2d 492 (1988). However, a claim may be raised for the first time on appeal if it amounts to a manifest error affecting a constitutional right. Id.
The jury found by general verdict that Goins committed assault with intent to commit indecent liberties. To find that the assault occurred with the intent to commit indecent liberties, the jury was required to find that Goins intended to touch "the sexual or other intimate parts of a person" for the purpose of "gratifying sexual desire of either party." Clerk's Papers at 20. However, in the special verdict, the jury found that Goins did not commit the assault for the purpose of sexual gratification. Logically, both verdicts turn on the jury's factual determination of whether Goins assaulted Z for the purpose of sexual gratification. The verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent because Goins either committed the assault for the purpose of sexual gratification or he did not. Both verdicts cannot be true. We must determine whether Goins waived the right to challenge the inconsistent verdicts by failing to object below. This, in turn, requires a determination of whether the inconsistent verdicts are automatically void, in which event the remedy is a new trial on both charges, or whether the general verdict should be upheld if there is sufficient evidence to support it. Goins also argues that RCW 4.44.440 is applicable to inconsistent verdicts in criminal trials. Under that statute, the special verdict controls the general verdict and the court shall enter judgment accordingly. If the statute applies in criminal cases, the remedy is acquittal, rather than a new trial. And if Goins failed to preserve the issue for appeal by failing to raise a timely objection, we must consider whether his trial counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goins
...to the apparently inconsistent verdicts, and Goins was subsequently sentenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed in State v. Goins, 113 Wash.App. 723, 54 P.3d 723 (2002). (1) Must Goins' conviction be vacated because the jury's general conviction for assault with intent to commit indecent liber......
-
People v. Rail
...and had been discharged, his argument that the verdict is inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review."); State v. Goins, 113 Wash.App. 723, 54 P.3d 723, 724 (002), aff'd, 151 Wash.2d 728, 92 P.3d 181 (2004).9 Other jurisdictions have taken this approach with ambiguous or inconsistent ......
-
State v. Randall
...a reasonable doubt, we will not reverse on grounds that the guilty verdict is inconsistent with an acquittal on another count." Goins, 113 Wn.App. at 734 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ng, Wn.2d 32, 48, 750 P.2d 632 (1988)). Here, Randall's jury was instructed that to convict of......
-
State v. Randall
...where "error" in the sense that the jury has not followed the court's instructions, most certainly has occurred.'" State v. Goins, 113 Wn. App. 723, 730, 54 P.3d 723 (2002), aff'd, 151 Wn.2d 728, 92 P.3d 181 (2004) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 105 S. Ct. 471 83 L. Ed. ......
-
Table of Cases
...11.5(3) State v. Glenn, 115 Wn. App. 540, 62 P.3d 921, review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1007 (2003): 4.3(14)(b) State v. Goins, 113 Wn. App. 723, 54 P.3d 723 (2002), aff'd, 151 Wn.2d 728 (2004): 11.7(5) State v. Gonzales, 111 Wn. App. 276, 45 P.3d 205 (2002), review denied, 148 Wn.2d 1012 (2003): 1......
-
§ 11.7 Particular Applications of the General Rule and Its Exceptions
...was aware of the inconsistency at the time the jury was polled), review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1038 (1990); State v. Goins, 113 Wn. App. 723, 54 P.3d 723 (2002) (finding, in light of substantial evidence, no manifest error affecting a constitutional right; holding that criminal defendant waived ......
-
The Emergence of Trial by Jury in Argentina
...29, 37. [149] Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.010(1)(b) (1993); see also Law No. 9182, supra note 35, at art. 44. [150] Washington v. Goines, 113 Wash. App. 723, 726, 54 P.3d 723, 730 (2002). [151] Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.130 (1969); see also Law No. 9182, supra note 35, at art. 24; Wash. Sup. Ct. R.......