State v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 17 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 30834–1–III.,30834–1–III. |
| Citation | 333 P.3d 410,181 Wash.App. 805 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Russell Allen HARRINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Prior Version Recognized as Unconstitutional
West's RCWA 9A.46.020(1)(a)(iv), 9A.76.170, 26.20.030(1)(b)Marie Jean Trombley, Attorney at Law, Graham, WA, for Appellant.
Andrew Kelvin Miller, Julie Elizabeth Long, Benton County Prosecutors Office, Kennewick, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 A jury found Russell Harrington guilty of first degree kidnapping of his then wife Michelle Harrington. On appeal, Harrington contends (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for first degree kidnapping, and (2) the statute defining first degree kidnapping is void for vagueness. Harrington also contends in his statement of additional grounds that his counsel was ineffective. We reject Harrington's contentions and affirm his conviction.
¶ 2 Russell and Michelle Harrington were married for 21 years. They have two children and had two guns, a .357 caliber handgun Russell always holstered at his hip and Michelle's grandfather's old rifle. Russell and Michelle lived paycheck to paycheck on Michelle's income. Despite marital troubles, the couple lived together at their Benton City home until December 30, 2009, when Russell held Michelle at gunpoint.
¶ 3 In June 2003, Russell Harrington was severely electrocuted at work. The electricityburned his nerves and myelin coating essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system. Russell later suffered a stroke. Russell could no longer work, he used a cane, and he increasingly ingested medications to combat chronic pain. Michelle eventually concluded that Russell abused pain medications. Russell stayed home and cared for his and Michelle's daughter and son. In 2009, their son was nine-years-old and their daughter had graduated from high school and moved from the home. Michelle tried to leave Russell multiple times, but stayed for their children's sake or because Russell threatened suicide.
¶ 4 In November 2009, Michelle told Russell that she wanted to divorce. Michelle testified at the criminal trial: Report of Proceedings (RP) at 52. In response, Russell expressed concerns about no longer receiving health insurance through Michelle's work and his lack of income. Michelle and Russell agreed to continue living together through the holidays. Russell again contemplated suicide.
¶ 5 On December 13, 2009, Russell Harrington wrote a will, a burial plan, and letters to loved ones and family. He attempted suicide the next day by grounding and liquefying different pills and placing the mixture into a livestock syringe. Russell parked his truck on the side of the road and phoned Michelle, their daughter, his sister, and his mother to inform them of his intentions. Russell's mother called 911. In the meantime, Russell injected the syringe into his arm, but, when he pressed the syringe's plunger, it would not move. Russell reinserted the syringe and tried again. The plunger again would not depress. His suicide attempt having been frustrated, Russell returned home.
¶ 6 A police officer responded to Russell Harrington's mother's emergency call by journeying to the Harrington home. Russell lied to the officer, denying that he had just tried to kill himself.
¶ 7 On December 17, 2009, Michelle and Russell Harrington and their son went to Oregon to celebrate Christmas with their respective families. The couple did not discuss divorce while in Oregon. On December 21, Russell purchased, in Oregon, a .40 caliber handgun. While in The Dalles, Russell filtered his mixture of pain medications and returned it to the syringe, by following instructions he found on the Internet.
¶ 8 On December 27, Michelle and Russell returned to their Benton City home. The couple discussed divorce again. Russell suspected infidelity by Michelle based on texts he found on her cell phone. Michelle told Russell that she wanted custody of their son.
¶ 9 Russell asked Michelle to miss work on Wednesday, December 30, so they could meet with a realtor about placing their home on the market. On December 30, Michelle left her son at daycare around 8 a.m. and immediately returned home. The trial testimony of Michelle and Russell as to what thereafter occurred diverges.
¶ 10 According to Michelle Harrington, Russell met her as she parked her car at the home. Russell told Michelle that his phone died while he talked to his grandmother. Russell asked to borrow Michelle's phone to again call his grandmother, Russell said he needed to retrieve the hospital's number from their bedroom, and Michelle followed Russell inside and into the bedroom. Russell pretended to search for the phone number, while Michelle helped.
¶ 11 Michelle Harrington testified that Russell abruptly shut the bedroom door, and he ordered Michelle to sit. Russell said “I have ten hours before anyone knows you're gone before you are due to ... pick up [our son].” RP at 72. Russell told Michelle that no realtor was coming, that their son would have two parents or no parents, and that RP at 72. Russell pulled down the bed's cover to reveal a syringe, bottle of scotch, shot glass, empty pill bottles, can of Pepsi, and duct tape.
¶ 12 Michelle noticed that Russell wore a holster holding a gun. With one hand pushing Russell away, Michelle slid a finger on her other hand across her iPhone in order to make a call. Russell pulled his gun and aimed it at Michelle. Russell took Michelle's phone and threw it across the room.
¶ 13 Michelle Harrington's iPhone fortuitously dialed her coworker, Penny Bailey–Sherman. Bailey–Sherman recognized Michelle's and Russell's voices and heard Russell speaking angrily. Michelle sobbed hysterically. Bailey–Sherman heard Russell threaten to kill Michelle. She also heard Russell tell Michelle to drink something. Bailey–Sherman shared the call with another coworker and her supervisor by placing it on speakerphone. The supervisor comprehended the gravity of the circumstances, obtained Michelle's address from Human Resources, and called 911.
¶ 14 According to Michelle Harrington, she tried to break a window to escape, but Russell pushed her back with his cane and forced her to sit. Russell ordered Michelle to sit with her butt flush to the ground. Russell forced Michelle to drink a shot of the scotch, while pointing the gun at her. The scotch was from their wedding, twenty years earlier. Russell also gave Michelle the Pepsi as a chaser. He poured another shot, but Michelle refused to drink it out of concern the alcohol would increase her vulnerability. Michelle believed that Russell intended to kill her. Michelle testified: “He got really mad because I wouldn't take another shot so he took me by my throat with his hand and pushed me up against the wall and he had the gun shoved into my forehead right between my [e]yes and he had me shoved up against the wall.” RP at 76–77. Russell repeatedly pushed Michelle toward the bedroom closet. She fell backwards into clothes.
¶ 15 According to Michelle Harrington, Russell then yelled at Michelle, “what is that, what is that, what did you do?” RP at 77. Michelle did not understand the question. Russell hurriedly left their bedroom, but before Michelle could escape, Russell returned. He told Michelle that police had arrived, and he repeated, RP at 77. Michelle, with greater fear, expected Russell would then kill her. Instead, Russell put his gun in his mouth. Then, tossing the gun aside, Russell grabbed the syringe and injected himself with his homemade stew of pain medications, Russell collapsed, and Michelle ran past Russell and out of the home to safety.
¶ 16 The saga continued. Russell Harrington crawled out of the house and yelled for police to shoot him. Russell then crawled back inside, but minutes later returned outside the house with a shoe in his hand. Police restrained him. An ambulance transported him to Kadlec Hospital, where he was placed in a medically induced coma. Once awake, Russell called Michelle to ask if she was “in trouble.” RP at 489. Michelle responded that they “probably shouldn't be talking” and hung up. RP at 489.
¶ 17 Russell Harrington testified that he only intended to kill himself. Russell admitted to hiding a syringe, pills, notes, and other items under the bed's cover. But after he pulled down the covers, Michelle pointed his .357 caliber handgun at him. Russell claims he tried to calm his wife by offering her a drink, testifying, implying Michelle would be sober enough to drive later that day. RP at 485. Russell left his handgun in the hallway, concerned that police might shoot at him if he exited the house armed. Russell also testified he was primarily concerned that Michelle might be shot in the cross fire.
¶ 18 Police photographed Michelle shortly after the December 30 assault. One photo showed a faint mark on her forehead where Russell pressed the gun against her. A forensic expert testified that he found multiple persons' deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) on the handgun Russell left in the hallway. But the expert testified that tests were inconclusive as to whether any of the DNA came from Michelle.
¶ 19 During trial, Michelle testified concerning the conditions at the couple's home after the December 30 confrontation:
I found several things over the next couple days and one of the things that I found that came out was that our phone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mares
...163, 839 P.2d 890).¶ 21 Thus, “[a] statute is not void for vagueness merely because some terms are not defined.” State v. Harrington,181 Wash.App. 805, 824, 333 P.3d 410 (2014). Likewise, a statute is not unconstitutionally vague “ ‘merely because a person cannot predict with complete certa......
-
State v. Burke
...792, 793 (1980), impliedly overruled by State v. Smith,111 Wash.2d 1, 759 P.2d 372, 375 (1988), as recognized in State v. Harrington,181 Wash.App. 805, 333 P.3d 410, 423 (2014). The court specifically found that the term “lawful order” was not sufficiently specific to satisfy the due proces......
-
State v. Yishmael
...are not read in a vacuum, nor is a statute void for vagueness "merely because some terms are not defined." State v. Harrington, 181 Wash. App. 805, 824, 333 P.3d 410. review denied, 181 Wash.2d 1016, 337 P.3d 326 (2014). When a criminal statute does not define words alleged to be unconstitu......
-
State v. Hitt
...State v. Garcia, 179 Wn.2d 828, 836, 318 P.3d 266 (2014); State v. Crane, 116Wn.2d 315, 325, 804 P.2d 10 (1991): State v. Harrington, 181 Wn. App. 805,818, 333 P.3d 410 (2014) ("An alternative means crime categorizes distinct acts that amount to the same crime."). 45. Crane, 116 Wn.2d at 32......