State v. Sargent
| Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | 50834-6-II |
| Citation | 8 Wn.App.2d 1063 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ANDRE ROBERT SARGENT, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Andre Robert Sargent appeals his jury trial convictions for felony harassment-death threats and unlawful imprisonment, both of which were domestic violence offenses. He argues that (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim to testify that Sargent told her that he had been hearing voices in his head (2) the to-convict instruction for the unlawful imprisonment charge failed to require jury unanimity, (3) the reasonable doubt instruction was improper, and (4) the trial court erred when it designated the felony harassment conviction as a domestic violence offense. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel (1) read portions of the victim's statement to the police (2) opposed the removal of a juror, (3) rejected a limiting instruction regarding evidence of prior acts of domestic violence by Sargent against a different victim, (4) failed to object to the to-convict instruction for the unlawful imprisonment charge and the reasonable doubt instruction, and (5) failed to object to the application of the domestic violence designation on the felony harassment charge. In addition, Sargent argues that cumulative error deprived him of his right to a fair trial. We affirm.
Brandi Nicole Crippen and Sargent started dating in October 2016. Crippen ended their relationship on March 2, 2017. On March 5, Crippen agreed to meet with Sargent at a location known as the Share House to exchange some of their personal items.
Crippen arrived at the Share House in her car and met Sargent on the street. After putting Crippen's items in the back seat of the car, Sargent got into the passenger's seat. Crippen told Sargent that she just wanted him to drop off her property, but Sargent told her that he needed to talk to her and asked her to drive around the corner. When Sargent persisted, Crippen drove two blocks away to an area that was "dark and secluded." 1 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 97.
After Crippen parked, Sargent told her that he had been "hearing voices in his head." 1 RP at 98. Sargent told Crippen that she "needed to sit there and listen to what he had to say." 1 RP at 101. The two then spoke about other issues, including whether Sargent had been faithful to her during their relationship. When Crippen asked Sargent to get out of her car and she put the car in drive Sargent "slammed" the car into park, took the keys, and told Crippen "that [she] was going to listen to everything that he had to say" and that he "was in control." 1 RP at 102.
After taking the keys, Sargent told Crippen that she "wasn't going anywhere" and angrily threatened to punch her and knock her out if she attempted to escape. 1 RP at 103. Sargent then started yelling at Crippen and began "degrading . . . and demeaning [her]" and insisting that he was '"in control'" and that she was '"going to listen to what [he had] to say."' 1 RP at 104. Sargent threatened to "ruin" her life, attack her at work, and show up at her apartment with her ex-husband. 1 RP at 106. Sargent also threatened to send naked pictures of Crippen to her coworkers and boss, to beat Crippen, and to kill her. He also told Crippen that he was not afraid to go to prison for killing her, that she was "in the same boat as his baby's mother," and that as long as he was not in jail she (Crippen) was not safe. 1 RP at 109.
Despite Sargent's threats, Crippen attempted to escape three times. When she managed to open the car door the first time, Sargent reached over, slammed the door shut, "yanked" Crippen back into the car, and threatened to kill her if she tried to get out again. 1 RP at 111. The second time she tried to escape, Sargent was able to lock the door.
Sargent continued to threaten to kill Crippen and demanded that she drive to an even more secluded area. When Crippen pleaded with him and told him that she did not want to drive there, he threatened to knock her out and drive there himself if she did not follow his directions.
Crippen then saw another car and began honking the horn. This startled Sargent, and Crippen was able to get out of the car. While out of the car, Crippen managed to call her roommate, Soria Cudal, and told Cudal that she (Crippen) was being chased by someone. Sargent attempted to pursue Crippen and lure her back to the car. Crippen eventually managed to get back into the car and lock herself in. Sargent unsuccessfully attempted to get back into the car. Crippen eventually was able to drive away.
When she was five or six blocks away, the police contacted Crippen on her phone. Crippen did not know how the police knew her cell phone number, but she later testified that she may have dialed 911 after she was able to escape the car.
Crippen met with an officer at her home about an hour and a half later and gave him an oral statement. She did not want to give a written statement at that time because she "just wanted it to be over," and she knew from past experience that pursing the matter would be "hard" and "drawn out." lRPat 123.
After Sargent persisted in trying to contact her and appeared at her work and other locations, she decided to file a written statement. On April 4, Vancouver Police Detective Sandra Aldridge contacted Crippen, and Crippen agreed to provide a written statement. Crippen signed the statement under penalty of perjury on April 24. Detective Aldridge subsequently arrested Sargent.
The State charged Sargent with felony harassment-death threats (domestic violence), [1]unlawful imprisonment, and fourth degree assault. The State also alleged that each of these offenses "was committed by one family or household member against another, and that this is a domestic violence offense as defined by RCW 10.33.020 and within the meaning of RCW 9.41.040." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 6-7. Sargent pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
Before the witnesses started to testify, the parties discussed the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of whether Crippen was in mental health counseling. The State contended that this evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and presented an unfair risk of prejudice. In response, defense counsel asked that the trial court limit evidence related to Sargent as well. The trial court granted the motion.
Crippen, Cudal, and Detective Aldridge testified for the State. The State's witnesses testified to the facts set out above. Sargent did not present any witnesses.
During direct examination, the State asked Crippen what happened when she and Sargent first arrived at the location of the incident. Crippen responded, "He started talking about hearing voices in his head." 1 RP at 98. Defense counsel objected.
With the jury absent, defense counsel stated that this testimony fell under the motion in limine regarding bringing up Sargent's mental health. The trial court questioned whether this actually fell under the ruling on the motion in limine, which it characterized as addressing whether Crippen or Sargent was in mental health counseling or whether they were prescribed antidepressants. The court discussed the limine order with counsel as it related to exclusion of evidence of mental health counseling and mental health diagnosis, as well as the evidence related to Sargent hearing voices. The court found the two topics distinguishable.
When the jury returned, defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the last response from the witness. The trial court stated that it had overruled the objection and declined to tell the jury to disregard Crippen's last answer.
Crippen testified that she believed Sargent would carry out his threats. She further testified that she feared Sargent's threats because he had told her about physically abusing an ex-girlfriend and had made prior comments about killing his ex-girlfriend if he saw her. Crippen stated that Sargent had once told her about punching a hole in the wall of the home he had shared with his ex-girlfriend, pursuing her when she tried to flee, and then "beat[ing] her" when he caught her. 1 RP at 109. Defense counsel did not object to this testimony.
During his cross-examination of Crippen, defense counsel read several portions of Crippen's written statement and verified that Crippen had written those statements. Defense counsel quoted the following portion of the statement:
1 RP at 145-46. Defense counsel did not refer to Sargent's history of abuse of other victims at any other time while cross-examining Crippen.
Defense counsel also questioned Crippen about why she initially refused to give a written statement if she was afraid of Sargent. During this part of his cross-examination, defense counsel quoted portions of Crippen's statement that highlighted her fear of Sargent. Additionally, in closing argument, defense counsel argued that if someone was as terrified as Crippen claimed to have been in her statement, they would not have delayed filing a police report.
2. Juror Issue
At the end of the first day of trial, juror 12 told the bailiff that he might know something about the case. When the trial court questioned the juror the next morning, the juror told the trial court that he had heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial