State v. Wanrow case brief summary
88 Wn.2d 221
SYNOPSIS: Appellant state challenged a decision of the Court of Appeals (Washington), which reversed respondent's murder and assault convictions due to allegedly improper admission of a recording of an emergency phone call to the police department.
FACTS:
-The victim, Wesler, had been suspected of molesting the children of Ms. Hooper, a friend of the Defendant, among others in the neighborhood.
-Ms. Hooper attempted to receive police assistance, however they refused to arrest Wesler until Monday morning (when Ms. Hooper was instructed to go to the police station to get a warrant).
-Ms. Hooper therefore asked the Defendant and some other adults to spend the weekend at her home for added protection.
-At around 5:00 a.m. on the date in question, one of the adults, Chuck Michel, went to Wesler’s house to bring him to Ms. Hooper’s residence to straighten things out.
-Wesler entered the house while Michel and another man, David Kelly, remained outside.
-Wesler, who was visibly intoxicated, refused to leave when asked to do so. A good deal of shouting and confusion soon arose.
-Eventually, the Defendant went to the front door to enlist the aid of Chuck Michel and when she turned to reenter the living room, Wesler was standing directly behind her.
-Since he was startled by this situation, the Defendant shot Wesler in what amounted to a reflex action.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Respondent was convicted of murder.
-The court of appeals reversed, holding that a tape recording of an emergency phone call to the police had been erroneously admitted.
-The supreme court affirmed.
HOLDING:
The supreme court held that Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.73.030(1) and § 9.73.050, prohibiting the secret recording of private communications and the use of those recordings in judicial proceedings, clearly applied to incoming calls to a police station.
ANALYSIS:
-The court also concluded that Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1) permitted the recording of emergency calls by police departments only for the purpose of verifying emergency information.
-In addition, the trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial to respondent.
-First, the instruction improperly precluded consideration of circumstances known to respondent substantially before the killing.
-Second, the instruction was gender-biased and violated respondent's equal protection rights, since it suggested consideration of a male altercation, not consideration of the female appellee's perceptions when she faced a large intoxicated male.
OUTCOME: Reversal of convictions affirmed, since statutes prohibiting use of recorded private communications in judicial proceedings clearly applied to emergency phone call to police. Also, trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial, as it was gender-biased and violated female respondent's equal protection rights.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
88 Wn.2d 221
SYNOPSIS: Appellant state challenged a decision of the Court of Appeals (Washington), which reversed respondent's murder and assault convictions due to allegedly improper admission of a recording of an emergency phone call to the police department.
FACTS:
-The victim, Wesler, had been suspected of molesting the children of Ms. Hooper, a friend of the Defendant, among others in the neighborhood.
-Ms. Hooper attempted to receive police assistance, however they refused to arrest Wesler until Monday morning (when Ms. Hooper was instructed to go to the police station to get a warrant).
-Ms. Hooper therefore asked the Defendant and some other adults to spend the weekend at her home for added protection.
-At around 5:00 a.m. on the date in question, one of the adults, Chuck Michel, went to Wesler’s house to bring him to Ms. Hooper’s residence to straighten things out.
-Wesler entered the house while Michel and another man, David Kelly, remained outside.
-Wesler, who was visibly intoxicated, refused to leave when asked to do so. A good deal of shouting and confusion soon arose.
-Eventually, the Defendant went to the front door to enlist the aid of Chuck Michel and when she turned to reenter the living room, Wesler was standing directly behind her.
-Since he was startled by this situation, the Defendant shot Wesler in what amounted to a reflex action.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Respondent was convicted of murder.
-The court of appeals reversed, holding that a tape recording of an emergency phone call to the police had been erroneously admitted.
-The supreme court affirmed.
HOLDING:
The supreme court held that Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.73.030(1) and § 9.73.050, prohibiting the secret recording of private communications and the use of those recordings in judicial proceedings, clearly applied to incoming calls to a police station.
ANALYSIS:
-The court also concluded that Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1) permitted the recording of emergency calls by police departments only for the purpose of verifying emergency information.
-In addition, the trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial to respondent.
-First, the instruction improperly precluded consideration of circumstances known to respondent substantially before the killing.
-Second, the instruction was gender-biased and violated respondent's equal protection rights, since it suggested consideration of a male altercation, not consideration of the female appellee's perceptions when she faced a large intoxicated male.
OUTCOME: Reversal of convictions affirmed, since statutes prohibiting use of recorded private communications in judicial proceedings clearly applied to emergency phone call to police. Also, trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial, as it was gender-biased and violated female respondent's equal protection rights.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment