State v. Lee
| Decision Date | 18 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 64401-2,64401-2 |
| Citation | 957 P.2d 741,135 Wn.2d 369 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Orson H. LEE and Brian Yates, Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Jonathan T. Stier, Nielsen & Broman, Eric Nielsen, Seattle-King County Public Defender Ass'n, Neil Fox, Seattle, for petitioners.
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Peter Meyers, Deputy County Prosecutor, for respondent.
Petitioners Brian Edward Yates and Orson Henry Lee each seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division I, which affirmed decisions by the King County Superior Court concluding RCW 9A.46.110, the statute defining the crime of "stalking," is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and does not violate constitutional
due process. We granted review of the consolidated cases. We affirm.
The questions presented in this case are (1) whether there is sufficient evidence in each case to support the findings of "guilty;" (2) whether the stalking statute, 1 former RCW 9A.46.110, is unconstitutionally overbroad; (3) whether the stalking statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (4) whether the stalking statute violates constitutional due process.
Following convictions in separate trials before the King County Juvenile Court in the Lee case and before the Shoreline District Court, with affirmance by the King County Superior Court, in the Yates case, the Court of Appeals, Division I, consolidated the appeals and affirmed the convictions in State v. Orson H. Lee and State v. Brian Yates. 2
Petitioner Brian Edward Yates' former girlfriend, Ms. Barbara Egan, 3 lived with him for a year. She moved out of his residence on September 1992 because he became physically abusive and assaulted her. 4
On January 5, 1993, Petitioner Yates came to Ms. Egan's On January 6, 1993, Ms. Egan observed Petitioner Yates watching her at her apartment complex and at her child's daycare center in Lynnwood. 7 At approximately 4:00 PM Petitioner telephoned Ms. Egan. She informed him she had a restraining order against him. 8 She told him not to call her, not to mail her anything, and to stay at least 100 yards away from her. Petitioner telephoned Ms. Egan a second time at 4:15 PM, and again at 6:00 PM. 9
apartment in Mountlake Terrace and demanded return of a video cassette recorder (VCR) he had given her for Christmas. She told him she wanted nothing to do with him and asked him to leave. Petitioner pushed her to the floor so he could enter her apartment and get the VCR. Ms. Egan got up and called the police. Petitioner was arrested, transported to the Lynnwood Police Department and charged with fourth degree assault and burglary. 5 He was released on bail before midnight. 6
On January 7, 1993, Ms. Egan took her young son to the daycare center at 9:30 AM. Petitioner Yates was sitting in his car outside the center watching her as she left for work at 9:45 AM. 10
On January 11, 1993, Ms. Egan and her friend, Kristina Cook, left the Texaco station at Northeast Bothell Way and 67th Street Northeast and observed Petitioner Yates following them as they headed for a Denny's restaurant. He On January 12, 1993, Petitioner Yates in his automobile followed Ms. Egan on her way home from work. 12 On January 13, 1993, Ms. Egan and a friend, Kathryn Peaballs, noticed Petitioner in his automobile staring at them from a Texaco service station in Kenmore. Petitioner followed them to Denny's Restaurant and parked his vehicle in an adjacent parking lot. Ms. Egan and Ms. Peaballs entered Denny's to make a telephone call. Petitioner Yates left when Ms. Egan pointed him out to a restaurant employee. 13
passed by the restaurant three times while they were there. When they no longer saw him, they left for Ms. Cook's house at 3:00 PM. At 4:00 PM Petitioner drove by Ms. Cook's house. Ms. Egan called the Snohomish County Police Department. 11
On March 17, 1993, Ms. Egan called the Mountlake Terrace Police Department to report Petitioner Yates made contact with her at her apartment. She reported Petitioner had been telephoning her at her apartment, had been following her everywhere she went, followed her to the store and back to her apartment, and followed her to a lawyer's office. 14
On March 23, 1993, Ms. Egan noticed Petitioner Yates following her as she was driving her automobile. She attempted to lose him by driving north on the freeway, Interstate 5. She thought she had lost him and proceeded to Lynnwood Square. She waited for a short time and then drove south through the Lynnwood Square parking lot. She then saw Petitioner drive toward her. He waved for her to stop. Ms. Egan drove to a 7-11 parking lot and called the Lynnwood Police Department. Petitioner pulled into a nearby Chevron service station and waited a short while, but left before the police arrived. Ms. Egan reported to the On March 23, 1993, Ms. Egan obtained a temporary order for protection from domestic violence, Shoreline District Court # 93-2-01688-1, ordering Petitioner Yates to have no contact with her and her child and directing him to stay away from her apartment and from her child's daycare center. 16
officers that Petitioner Yates "follows me everywhere I go." 15
On April 2, 1993, Ms. Egan reported to the King County Police, Kenmore Station, that Petitioner Yates followed her all the way from Mountlake Terrace to her child's daycare center in Lynnwood. After she dropped her son off, Petitioner followed her to the Bothell exit on Interstate 405. Petitioner took the same exit as Ms. Egan, and pulled up next to her at a traffic light, honking his horn and shouting "Can't we have a cup of coffee and talk?" Ms. Egan was frightened and drove to the King County Police Station at Kenmore. Petitioner followed her, but kept going when she pulled into the police parking lot. The reporting officer described Ms. Egan as "visibly shaken." 17
On April 6, 1993, Ms. Egan was granted an extension on her temporary order for protection from domestic violence. 18 This order was served on Petitioner Yates April 6, 1993 by Mountlake Terrace Police Detective U Hoalland. 19
On April 7, 1993, Petitioner Yates contacted Ms. Egan at her babysitter's house and followed her and her friend, Kristina Cook, to an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. Petitioner several times looked into the windows of the On April 11, 1993, Ms. Egan saw Petitioner Yates' automobile parked in her apartment parking lot. She saw him leave the vehicle and walk towards her apartment complex. She called the Mountlake Terrace Police Department. Officer U Sheets responded to the call. He parked his vehicle behind Petitioner's and observed Petitioner walking from the apartment complex towards him. Officer Sheets described Petitioner's conduct as follows:
building where the AA meeting was under way. Petitioner drove by Ms. Cook's house many times.
At first he was just slowly walking towards me and did not see me, but when he did see me he immediately started to run west through the lot. I drove my car up and caught up to him. I asked him who he was and he said, "I'm Brian," and then I asked him what he was doing and he said, "Just jogging from my car." I then advised him that I had been over by his car for the past 5-10 minutes and had not seen him, in fact I just saw him come from the apt. complex. 20
Officer Sheets then arrested Petitioner Yates for violating the April 6, 1996 temporary restraining order. 21
On April 19, 1993, Ms. Egan and Ms. Cook saw Petitioner Yates in his vehicle behind some bushes near Ms. Cook's residence. They drove up to him. He said "I'm not doing anything wrong" and left. Ms. Egan and Ms. Cook returned to Ms. Cook's residence at approximately 2:30 PM and saw Petitioner driving down the street toward them. He drove by the house a few minutes later. 22
On April 20, 1993, Court Commissioner Arden J. Bedle, On April 24, 1993, Petitioner Yates telephoned Ms. Cook at her home. He told her she should not assist Ms. Egan in pursuing his violations of court orders. 24 On April 27, 1994 the Honorable Douglas J. Smith, Shoreline District Court, signed an order prohibiting contact (domestic violence): 25
Snohomish County Superior[957 P.2d 746] Court, issued a permanent order for protection against Petitioner Yates. 23
It is hereby ordered, that pursuant to RCW 10.99.040, the defendant shall not stalk nor have any contact, directly or indirectly, in person, in writing or by telephone, personally or through any other person, with Barbara Egan (DOB 12-25-67), and Chris Cook (DOB 4-5-65) and Christine Jones (DOB 6-1-62), until further order of this court.
On February 2, 1993, Petitioner Brian Yates was charged by the King County Prosecuting Attorney in the Shoreline District Court with the offense of "stalking" in violation of RCW 9A.46.110, the complaint (reading in confusing grammatical form): 26
That the defendant in King County, Washington, on or about 1/13/93 without lawful authority, intentionally and repeatedly follows [sic] the victim to the victim's home, school, place of employment, business or any other location, or follows [sic] the victim while he/she is in transit between locations, and the victim is intimidated, harasses [sic] or placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person being followed or injure another person, and the stalker did know or reasonably should know that the victim being followed is frightened, intimidated Although the syntax is confusing, the complaint presumably was intended to be written in the language of the "stalking" statute, former RCW 9A.46.110, 28 which in 1993 read as follows:
or harassed; or did intend to frighten, intimidate or harass the victim. 27
(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitesell, No. 82,610.
...935 P.2d 1259, 1262-65 (Utah App. 1997) (holding that stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad); State v. Lee, 135 Wash.2d 369, 391-92, 957 P.2d 741 (1998) (recognizing strong interest in right of privacy and holding that stalking statute was not overbroad as it did not infring......
-
State v. Williams
...30, 992 P.2d 496 (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)); State v. Lee, 135 Wash.2d 369, 393, 957 P.2d 741 (1998); City of Tacoma v. Luvene, 118 Wash.2d 826, 844, 827 P.2d 1374 (1992). "A statute is unconstitutionally vague if either ......
-
City of Bremerton v. Widell
... ... We accepted direct review and affirm four of the convictions and reverse four ... FACTS ... The BHA was established to provide affordable, sanitary, and safe housing to low income individuals. See RCW 35.82.010.020(9). Over 60 years ago, the Washington State Legislature declared the dire need for subsidized housing programs ... It is hereby declared: (1) That there exist in the state unsanitary or unsafe dwelling accommodations and that persons of low income are forced to reside in such unsanitary or unsafe accommodations; that within the state ... ...
-
State v. Olsen
...federal constitutional analysis when reviewing analogous provisions in the Washington Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Lee, 135 Wash.2d 369, 387, 957 P.2d 741 (1998) (Absent a demonstration that the Washington Constitution provides broader protection, we will interpret it "coextensively wi......