State v. Vasquez
| Decision Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 36281-7-III,36281-7-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RICHARD VASQUEZ JR., Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Richard Vasquez appeals his convictions and life sentence. We affirm, but remand to strike the $100 DNA1 collection fee.
In September 2014, Richard Vasquez asked a friend, Lawrence Quiroz, if he had any pistols for use in a robbery. He also asked Quiroz if he would be a driver for him and another individual, Samuel Crafton-Jones. Vasquez told Quiroz they were targeting an older couple because they were less likely to fight back. Quiroz declined to participate in Vasquez's plan.
On the morning of October 1, 2014, Kristen Fork and Robert Miller, an older couple, were inside their home. At about 6:15 a.m., Miller heard a knock on his door and opened it. A man, later identified as Vasquez, claimed his car was overheating. Miller told Vasquez to wait there, and he shut the door. Miller then went to the master bedroom and told Fork that something was not right. When he returned to speak with Vasquez, Miller saw Vasquez and a man, later identified as Samuel Crafton-Jones, inside the home. Crafton-Jones held a gun to Miller's head and demanded gold from him. He threatened he would kill both Miller and Fork.
Vasquez and Crafton-Jones tied up Miller and Fork and continued to threaten the couple. Crafton-Jones pistol-whipped Miller and demanded the combination to his safe. When Miller had trouble opening the safe, Crafton-Jones kicked Miller in the face and again threatened to kill him. When Miller opened the safe, Crafton-Jones saw there were only papers in the safe and again threatened to kill Miller unless he gave them gold.
Fork used a ruse to get Vasquez and Crafton-Jones to break their line of sight with her. She then escaped out a window. Vasquez chased her outside and Fork ran to her front yard yelling for help. Vasquez tried to get her to stop yelling and hit her two or three times. When that did not quiet her, he went back inside and told Crafton-Jones what was happening. Both of them then went outside. Crafton-Jones hit Fork with his gun andtold her to shut up. Both men kicked Fork to try to stop her from yelling. The assault shattered Fork's dentures and cheekbone, and caused profuse bleeding from her mouth and face resulting in approximately 65 stitches.
Fork's yelling attracted a neighbor, who came outside. When the two men saw the neighbor, they ran to a brown van and fled. Fork saw the van's license plate number and wrote it down.
Fork reported to 911 that she and Miller were the victims of a home invasion robbery and violent assault.2 She said her attackers were armed and had fled in a brown van, license plate AFS8595. She said "she believed that the suspects were Hispanic males in their 30s." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 141. Dispatch ran the plate number and quickly advised officers of the owner of the van and the owner's address.
Within minutes, Officers Terryl Way and Renard Edwards arrived at the owner's address and located the van. The officers were familiar with the address because the residence was frequented by drug users. Tree cover made the area darker in the early morning, and the officers needed flashlights to see. Using a flashlight, the officers saw a black firearm holster on the driver's side floorboard. Officer Edwards felt the van'shood, and it was still warm. The officers then saw two men, Vasquez and Crafton-Jones, walking from the rear of the residence less than 30 feet away. Officer Edwards, with his firearm in the low ready position, identified himself as a police officer, and ordered the suspects to the ground because he believed they possibly were the two who attacked Fork and Miller. Vasquez complied immediately, but Crafton-Jones hesitated and appeared he might run. After ordering Crafton-Jones to the ground several times, he slowly complied.
The officer patted down both suspects for officer safety. During the pat down, the officers found a black stun gun in Crafton-Jones's pants pocket. They questioned the suspects about whether either had driven the van. Vasquez began sweating profusely and said "'they had been tweaking all night at a graveyard.'" CP at 144.
The officers detained the two suspects so Miller could be brought to them for a showup identification. Within minutes, Miller arrived and positively identified both men as the robbers.
The officers recovered keys and jewelry belonging to Miller and Fork in the back yard of the address where the van was parked. Investigators found a cap and a glove at the burgled home. Vasquez's DNA was found on the cap, and Crafton-Jones's DNA was found on the glove.
By amended information, the State charged Vasquez with one count of first degree burglary, two counts of first degree kidnapping, two counts of first degree robbery, one count of first degree assault, one count of second degree assault, and one count of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. Before trial, Vasquez moved to suppress the showup identification and all resultantly discovered evidence. He argued that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to seize him because neither he nor Crafton-Jones matched the description of the robbery suspects. Specifically, Vasquez, although Hispanic, was 48 years old and Crafton-Jones, although 38 years old, is white. The court held a CrR 3.6 hearing, denied the motion, and later entered findings and conclusions. The case proceeded to trial.
With respect to the kidnapping counts, the second element of the to-convict instruction read:
CP at 116. The instruction explained to the jury that it need not be unanimous as to which of the three alternatives is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds that one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury found Vasquez guilty as charged. The trial court determined that Vasquez qualified as a persistent offender and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The determination was based in part on Vasquez's first degree robbery conviction when he was 16 years old. The trial court also ordered Vasquez to pay a $100 DNA collection fee and found him indigent for purposes of appeal.
Vasquez timely appealed.
Vasquez contends his right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated. He argues there was not sufficient evidence to support each of the alternative means charged for his kidnapping charge. We disagree.
Under article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution, criminal defendants are entitled to a unanimous jury verdict. State v. Owens, 180 Wn.2d 90, 95, 323 P.3d 1030 (2014). This right extends to the right to unanimity of means if the charge includes alternative means of committing the offense. Id. This is satisfied if there is sufficient evidence to support each of the alternative means charged. Id. When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, this court looks to whether the evidence, viewedin the light most favorable to the State, could justify a rational trier of fact finding the defendant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each of the alternative means charged. State v. Armstrong, 188 Wn.2d 333, 341, 394 P.3d 373 (2017).
Alternative means crimes are those that categorize distinct acts that amount to the same crime. State v. Harrington, 181 Wn. App. 805, 818, 333 P.3d 410 (2014). RCW 9A.40.020, which defines first degree kidnapping, provides:
In Harrington, we held that these five subparts are distinct specific intentions that represent five alternative means for proving first degree kidnapping. 181 Wn. App. at 818.
Nevertheless, the trial court's instruction separated subpart (a) into two means, yet properly listed subpart (b) as one mean. And as noted previously, the instruction told the jurors they did not have to be unanimous on which of the three alternatives was proved, as long as each juror found that at least one alternative had been proved beyond a reasonabledoubt. For this reason, the law of the case doctrine requires us to analyze the factual sufficiency of each of these three alternatives. State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102, 954 P.2d 900 (1998).
"Abduct" includes restraining a person by use or threat of use of deadly force. RCW 9A.40.010(1). Here, Vasquez and Crafton-Jones not only tied up the older couple, they threatened to kill them if they did not say where the gold was. The tying up did not prevent the couple from leaving. The threat of deadly force did. Vasquez does not challenge that he and Crafton-Jones abducted the older couple.
Vasquez also does not challenge that there was sufficient evidence that he and Crafton-Jones abducted Miller and Fork to facilitate burglary and robbery. For this reason, we focus on whether there was sufficient evidence to support the remaining two alternates—intent to "hold the person for ransom or reward" and intent to "hold the person as a shield or hostage."
Hold the person for ransom or reward
"Reward" is a broad term and implies something given in return for evil or good. State v. Aleck, 10 Wn. App. 796, 802, 520 P.2d 645 (1974). Here, Vasquez threatened to kill the older couple if they did not give...
To continue reading
Request your trial