State v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 06 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 52275-6-II,52275-6-II |
| Citation | 474 P.3d 599,14 Wash.App.2d 779 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Justin Nicholas JENNINGS, Appellant. |
PUBLISHED OPINION
Glasgow, J. ¶ 1 Justin Nicholas Jennings shot and killed J. Christopher Burton. Jennings claimed at trial that he shot Burton in self-defense. A jury found him guilty of second degree felony murder. He appeals his conviction.
¶ 2 Jennings argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding a toxicology report showing that Burton had methamphetamine in his body at the time of his death. Jennings also argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support a guilty verdict for second degree felony murder. Jennings asserts that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to trial by jury by not striking a witness's comment that Jennings argues was an improper opinion on guilt. Finally, Jennings asks this court to strike the imposition of the criminal filing fee and DNA collection fee. The State concedes these fees should be stricken.
¶ 3 We hold that the exclusion of the toxicology report did not violate Jennings's constitutional right to present a defense and any evidentiary error was harmless. The evidence was sufficient to support Jennings's second degree felony murder conviction. Finally, any error arising from the witness's comment was harmless. We affirm Jennings's conviction. We accept the State's concession and remand for the trial court to strike the filing fee and DNA collection fee from Jennings's judgment and sentence.
FACTS
¶ 4 Jennings went with his friend Lance Redman to get Redman's car from a mobile home in Puyallup, Washington, where Redman had been living but had recently been kicked out. Jennings had been to the home many times and knew that drug activity occurred there. Jennings also knew Redman could be a "hothead." Verbatim Report of Proceeding (VRP) (June 12, 2018) at 1309. Jennings testified that he went to defuse hostilities between Redman and others at the house. Jennings armed himself with bear spray and a gun.
¶ 5 When they arrived, Redman saw that his car was not at the home. Burton and Gary Tongedahl were in the yard. Redman demanded they go inside to figure out where his car was. Jennings had bear spray in one hand and a gun in the other, and Redman was also carrying a gun.
¶ 6 Jennings was on high alert when he entered the home because he knew violent events had recently occurred there. Burton and Redman began arguing in the living room, and Redman had his gun out. Jennings was familiar with the behavior of people who consumed methamphetamine, and Jennings realized Redman was high on methamphetamine and acting aggressively. Jennings believed that Burton was also high on methamphetamine, based on his behavior and appearance. Jennings testified, "as soon as we started to enter the mobile home, [Burton] ... became aggressive in response to [Redman] being aggressive and loud." VRP (June 11, 2018) at 1298. Jennings described how Burton "aggressively move[d] toward[ ] [Redman]" even though Redman was armed, leading Jennings "to believe ... [Burton] was not in [his] right mind." VRP (June 12, 2018) at 1323-24.
¶ 7 Burton and Redman argued about the car and then began to scuffle, wrestling in the foyer of the house. Jennings sprayed his bear spray at them to break up the fight.
¶ 8 Burton then turned around and started walking toward Jennings, who backed up. Jennings believed Burton had Redman's gun. Other witnesses disputed whether and how far Burton moved toward Jennings and whether Burton appeared to have anything in his hands. One witness, Albert T. Duane, testified that Burton was rubbing his eyes.
¶ 9 Afraid Burton was reacting violently because he was high on methamphetamine, Jennings said he feared for his life. Jennings fired his gun and hit Burton twice. Duane testified that Jennings looked at Burton immediately after shooting him and said, "I got you, dog," before running out the door. VRP (June 7, 2018) at 990. Redman also left the house.
¶ 10 Burton was not armed. He died at the scene shortly after the shooting and before the ambulance arrived.
¶ 11 Jennings was arrested the next day. He was charged with second degree intentional murder ( RCW 9A.32.050(1)(a) ), second degree felony murder predicated on second degree assault ( RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b) ), and unlawful possession of a firearm ( RCW 9.41.040(1)(a) ).1
¶ 12 Jennings's defense was that the killing was justified because he feared for his life and he shot Burton in self-defense. To corroborate his claim that his subjective fear of Burton was reasonable, Jennings planned to present a medical examiner's toxicology report that showed Burton had methamphetamine in his body at the time of his death.
¶ 13 The State moved to exclude the toxicology report, arguing lack of relevance to Jennings's belief at the time of the shooting, and the trial court granted the State's motion. Jennings took exception to the trial court's ruling, arguing that it prevented him from presenting a defense. The trial court also ruled, and the parties agreed, that the State could not hold any absence of toxicology evidence against the defense.
¶ 14 During the defense's cross-examination of Tongedahl, Burton's friend who witnessed the shooting, the defense attempted to impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement Tongedahl made to police. Tongedahl blurted out that on the day he made the statement, he had just "witnessed [his] closest friend being murdered." VRP (June 6, 2018) at 874. Both the defense and the State moved to strike, without explaining the basis for their motion. The trial court denied both motions to strike and directed the defense to continue cross-examination. Jennings's counsel repeated Tongedahl's comment twice in cross-examination, using it to undermine Tongedahl's credibility by suggesting that his memory of the incident was distorted by his emotional response to seeing his best friend shot.
¶ 15 To convict Jennings of felony murder, the jury had to find that Jennings caused Burton's death in the course of and in furtherance of a felony or in immediate flight from a felony. The alleged underlying felony in this case was second degree assault occurring when Jennings sprayed Burton with bear spray. On the second degree intentional murder charge, the jury was given a lesser included offense instruction for first degree manslaughter.
¶ 16 The jury also was instructed on self-defense. The self-defense instruction explained that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justifiable. The killing would be justifiable if Jennings reasonably believed Burton intended to inflict death or great personal injury on himself or someone else and Jennings reasonably believed there was imminent danger. The jury also received an initial aggressor instruction, explaining that if it decided that Jennings provoked Burton first, Jennings could not claim self-defense.
¶ 17 In closing, the defense argued primarily that Jennings acted in self-defense. Counsel emphasized that Jennings thought Burton was "amped up on meth" when he aggressively approached Jennings. VRP (June 13, 2018) at 1492. Then in rebuttal, the State argued that, although Jennings believed Burton was high on methamphetamine at the time of the shooting, Jennings had "no proof of it at that time" because he didn't know Burton and did not know for a fact that he had consumed methamphetamine. Id. at 1540.2
¶ 18 The jury convicted Jennings of first degree manslaughter and second degree felony murder. The trial court vacated the manslaughter conviction, and Jennings was sentenced for second degree felony murder and unlawful possession of a firearm charge, to which he had previously pleaded guilty.
¶ 19 At sentencing, Jennings argued he was indigent and could not pay nonmandatory legal financial obligations. The trial judge signed an order of indigency and orally ruled that he would impose only mandatory financial obligations. The trial court imposed the $200 filing fee and $100 DNA collection fee.
¶ 20 Jennings appeals his conviction. He also appeals the judgment and sentence provisions imposing the filing fee and DNA collection fee.
ANALYSIS
¶ 21 Jennings argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense and abused its discretion by excluding the toxicology evidence showing that there was methamphetamine in Burton's body at the time of his death. We conclude there was no constitutional error, and any evidentiary error arising from the exclusion of the toxicology report was harmless.
¶ 22 Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to present a defense. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI, XIV ; WASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 3, 22 ; Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973). In State v. Arndt , the Washington Supreme Court recently clarified the two-part analysis for determining whether the exclusion of evidence violates a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. 194 Wash.2d 784, 797-98, 453 P.3d 696 (2019). Appellate courts must not only review the trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, but must also consider de novo, in every case where the right to present a defense is raised, whether those rulings deprived the defendant of their constitutional right to present a defense. Id. ; see also generally State v. Darden , 145 Wash.2d 612, 621-22, 41 P.3d 1189 (2002) ().
¶ 23 Arndt clarified that the constitutional analysis is required even where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its evidentiary ruling. Although we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jennings
...court added that even if the trial court abused its discretion under ER 401 and 402, the error was harmless. State v. Jennings , 14 Wash. App. 2d 779, 790-92, 474 P.3d 599 (2020).¶ 10 Jennings petitioned for review, arguing the Court of Appeals applied the wrong constitutional standard in d......
- Alim v. City of Seattle
-
State v. Vaile
... ... presented with an argument that an evidentiary ruling ... violated a defendant's right to present a defense, we ... first analyze the trial court's decision for abuse of ... discretion under the rules of evidence. State v ... Jennings , 199 Wn.2d 53, 58, 502 P.3d 1255 (2022). If ... abuse of discretion is found, and the error is not harmless, ... we reverse on the evidentiary ruling and avoid the ... constitutional question. Id. at 59. But if no abuse ... of discretion is found, we consider the ... ...
-
State v. Parker
...De novo review of right to present a defense Next, we conduct a constitutional analysis. State v. Jennings, 14 Wn. App. 2d 779, 789, 474 P.3d 599 (2020). As long as the evidence is relevant, courts balance "the State's interest in excluding the evidence . . . against the defendant's need fo......