State Of Washington v. Kenneth Youngblood ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                         ILEL)
    S fM' P01 IS10 T8 -S
    a OF APPEAI
    2013   N011,
    13 AA 11: 17
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHIN
    DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                             No. 42635 -8 -II
    Respondent,
    V.
    KENNETH RAY YOUNGBLOOD,                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    11
    WORSWICK, C. J. — A jury        found Kenneth Youngblood guilty of first degree manslaughter.
    Youngblood appeals his conviction, asserting that ( 1) the State presented insufficient evidence to
    prove the recklessness and causation elements of first degree manslaughter and ( 2) the trial
    court' s reasonable doubt instruction misled the jury on the State' s burden of proof. Because the
    State presented insufficient evidence to prove the recklessness element of first degree
    manslaughter, we reverse Youngblood' s conviction and remand for dismissal with prejudice.
    FACTS
    On December 18, 2009, Mark Davis went to an Aberdeen, Washington bar after
    attending a memorial service for a friend who had committed suicide. Youngblood was also at
    the bar that evening. While at the bar, Davis appeared to be intoxicated. Davis slurred his
    speech, cried over   the death   of his   friend,   and   repeatedly   stated   that he   wanted   to kill himself.
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    Youngblood was speaking with Davis outside the bar when Youngblood' s daughter,
    Katherine Youngblood,           and   Katherine'   s   friend, Emily Brisby,       arrived.'   The four made plans to
    meet at Youngblood' s home. When they arrived at Youngblood' s home, the four began drinking
    and talking. Shortly thereafter, Davis became upset and suicidal. After Davis became
    distraught, Youngblood offered him between 10 and 20 pills to calm him down. According to
    Brisby, Youngblood handed Davis 10 to 20 pills but, when asked, refused to tell Davis what kind
    of pills   they   were,   stating only that " they     were   to   calm   him down." Report of Proceedings ( RP)
    at 109.
    Shorty after ingesting the pills, Davis became " spac[ e] y" and appeared to be " heavily
    sedated."     RP at 110. After approximately 20 minutes, Davis tried to go to the bathroom but was
    too intoxicated to walk and had to be carried to the bathroom by Youngblood and Katherine. For
    the next few hours, Brisby frequently checked the bathroom to see if Davis was okay. She saw
    that Davis had fallen from the toilet with his head resting on the side of the bathtub and that he
    was still breathing. Brisby stated that she wanted to call 911, but Youngblood told her not to call
    911 because he had taken that amount of the medication before and knew that Davis would be
    okay. Before leaving Youngblood' s home at around 3: 30 to 4: 00 AM, Brisby checked on Davis
    and saw that he was still breathing. The following day, medics were called to Youngblood' s
    home and found that Davis had died on the bathroom floor.
    Youngblood told police officers that he had an illness that made it difficult " for him to
    remember      things, particularly      when   he has been         taking his   medication or   been   drinking."   RP at
    33.   Youngblood stated to the officers that he had hosted an after -hours party at his house with
    1
    For clarity, we refer to Katherine Youngblood by her first name, intending no disrespect.
    2
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    Davis, Katherine, and Brisby. Youngblood also told officers about his prescribed medications
    after the officers noticed several prescription bottles around his home. Officers collected several
    prescription     bottles   as evidence,    including   a   half filled bottle
    -                 of   Seroquel. 2   The State charged
    3
    Youngblood        with   first degree   manslaughter and        controlled     substances      homicide.
    At trial; forensic toxicologist Brianne O' Reilly testified that she had tested a sample of
    Davis'   s   blood,   which   test   revealed   Davis had   a   blood   alcohol   level   of   0. 230 to 0. 235.   O' Reilly' s
    test of Davis' s blood sample also revealed the presence of Seroquel and clonazepam, an anti-
    seizure medication. O' Reilly stated that the presence of Seroquel in Davis' s blood sample
    exceeded the therapeutic dosage associated with the drug. But O' Reilly was unwilling to opine
    that the Seroquel in Davis' s system caused his death. O' Reilly stated that she had trouble
    determining a fatal toxicity level for Seroquel because it is " in general considered a pretty safe
    medication."       RP at 70.
    Forensic pathologist Emmanuel Lacsina testified that he had performed Davis' s autopsy,
    which revealed that Davis had high levels of alcohol and Seroquel in his system when he died.
    Lacsina stated his opinion that the combination of Seroquel and alcohol caused Davis' s death.
    Lacsina also testified that this was the first case that he had examined where Seroquel was a
    factor in a person' s death.
    2
    According     to the trial trial   testimony, Seroquel is      a   brand   name     for the
    drug" quetiapine," an
    anti- psychotic medication generally used in the treatment of schizophrenia or bipolar mania."
    RP at 69.
    3 Before trial, the trial court granted the State' s motion to dismiss the controlled substances
    homicide charge. Thus, we do not address whether sufficient evidence would have supported
    that charge.
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    The jury returned a verdict finding Youngblood guilty of first degree manslaughter.
    Youngblood timely appeals his conviction.
    ANALYSIS
    Youngblood argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his first
    degree manslaughter conviction. Specifically, Youngblood contends that the State' s evidence
    was insufficient to support the recklessness element of first degree manslaughter. We agree.
    The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt
    beyond    a reasonable    doubt." State         v.   Salinas, 
    119 Wash. 2d 192
    , 201, 
    829 P.2d 1068
    ( 1992). All
    reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted
    most   strongly   against   the defendant."          
    Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d at 201
    . "   A claim of insufficiency
    admits the truth of the State' s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn
    therefrom."    
    Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d at 201
    .    Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are
    deemed equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 
    94 Wash. 2d 634
    , 638, 
    618 P.2d 99
    ( 1980).
    Credibility   determinations       are   for the trier       of   fact   and cannot     be   reviewed on appeal."   State v.
    Camarillo, 
    115 Wash. 2d 60
    , 71,    
    794 P.2d 850
    ( 1990). To convict Youngblood for first degree
    manslaughter, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of former
    RCW 9A.32. 060 ( 1997),           which provided         in   relevant part, "     A person is guilty of manslaughter in
    the   first degree   when ... [   h] e recklessly       causes      the   death   of another person."      Thus, to sustain
    Youngblood' s first degree manslaughter conviction.on appeal, the State' s evidence must have
    been sufficient to prove that he acted recklessly.
    El
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    RCW 9A.08. 010( c)       provides, "   A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she
    knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard
    of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise
    in the   same situation."      RCW 9A.08. 010( c)' s definition of recklessness contains both subjective
    and objective components, such that it requires the jury to determine " both what the defendant
    knew     and   how      a reasonable person would   have   acted   knowing these   facts." State v. R. H.
    S., 94
    Wn.   App.     844, 847, 
    974 P.2d 1253
    ( 1999).      When determining whether a defendant acted
    recklessly under this definition, the trier of fact " is permitted to find actual subjective knowledge
    if there is sufficient information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a fact exists."
    R. 
    KS, 94 Wash. App. at 847
    .
    Youngblood contends that the State failed to present any evidence that he had actual
    knowledge of the substantial risk of death created by providing 10 to 20 Seroquel pills to a
    highly intoxicated Davis. In response, the State does not point to any evidence in the record
    supporting the jury finding that Youngblood had specific knowledge of a substantial risk of death
    that could occur by providing Seroquel to Davis, but instead asserts that it is a matter of
    common knowledge" that mixing prescription medication with alcohol could have adverse side
    effects, including death. Br. of Respondent at 6. But, even accepting the State' s argument that a
    reasonable person in Youngblood' s position would believe that giving a large quantity of
    prescription medication to an intoxicated person could result in adverse side effects, including
    the possibility of death, here the State was required to prove that Youngblood knew of and
    disregarded a substantial risk that death would occur by providing an intoxicated Davis with
    Seroquel       pills.   RCW 9A.08. 010( c).   We hold that the State failed to     meet   this burden.
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    The State did not present any evidence that Youngblood had actual knowledge of the
    risks associated with combining Seroquel with alcohol, let alone a substantial risk of death. For
    example, the State did not present any testimony from a physician or pharmacist stating that they
    typically caution patients against mixing Seroquel and alcohol due to the risk of death, nor did
    the State present any documentary evidence, such as text from a warning label on the
    prescription bottle or physician' s note. And the State did not present the half filled prescription
    -
    bottle of Seroquel that police had collected from Youngblood' s apartment.
    The State' s evidence also failed to establish that a reasonable person would believe that
    giving Seroquel to an intoxicated person would likely result in the person' s death. Although
    forensic toxicologist O' Reilly testified that the manufacturers of Seroquel warn against mixing
    the drug with alcohol, she did not testify that such manufacturers' warnings included information
    about a substantial risk of death associated with combining Seroquel and alcohol. And O' Reilly
    did not opine that Seroquel was the cause of Davis' s death, testifying instead that Seroquel is " in
    general considered a   pretty   safe medication."   RP at 70.
    Forensic pathologist Lacsina' s testimony similarly failed to establish knowledge of a
    substantial risk of death associated with providing Seroquel to an intoxicated person. Although
    Lacsina concluded that the combination of Seroquel and alcohol caused Davis' s death, he
    admitted that this was the first case he had examined in which Seroquel was a factor in causing
    someone' s death. In light of the State' s own expert witnesses' testimony that Seroquel is
    generally considered a safe medication ( O' Reilly) and that this was the only case examined by
    the witness where Seroquel was a factor in death ( Lacsina), we cannot accept the State' s claim
    C
    No. 42635 -8 -II
    that the substantial risk of death associated with combining Seroquel and alcohol is a matter of
    common knowledge."
    Because the State' s evidence was insufficient to prove that Youngblood knew, or that a
    reasonable person in Youngblood' s position would know, of a substantial risk of death
    associated with providing Seroquel to a person under the effects of alcohol, it failed to establish
    the element of recklessness required to sustain a first degree manslaughter conviction.
    Accordingly, we reverse Youngblood' s first degree manslaughter conviction and remand for
    4
    dismissal   with prejudice.
    A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
    Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
    2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
    Worswick, C. J.
    4
    Because we reverse Youngblood' s conviction based on the insufficiency of the State' s
    evidence, we need not address his remaining issues.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 42635-8

Filed Date: 11/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021