State of Washington v. Kurtis Scott Phillips ( 2016 )

FILED
MAY 24, 2016
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 33672-7-111
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
KURTIS SCOTT PHILLIPS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
)
)
FEARING, C.J. -Kurtis Scott Phillips appeals from his 2015 Grant County
convictions for second degree possession of stolen property, possession of
methamphetamine, and third degree theft. He contends the jury instruction on reasonable
doubt, based on Washington Pattern Jury Instruction (WPIC) 4.01, is unconstitutional
because it shifts the burden of proof and requires the jury to articulate a reason for doubt.
See 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL
4.01, at 85 (3d ed. 2008). We disagree and affirm Phillip's convictions.
FACTS
In July 2014, Kurtis Phillips used a stolen credit card to buy items at a smoke
shop, a department store, and a gas station. Ephrata police officers arrested him and
No. 33672-7-111
State v. Phillips
found methamphetamine in his backpack.
PROCEDURE
The State of Washington charged Kurtis Phillips with second degree possession of
stolen property, possession of methamphetamine, third degree theft, tampering with
physical evidence, and making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. At
trial, the court instructed the jury on reasonable doubt:
The defendant is presumed innocent. This presumption continues
throughout the entire trial unless during your deliberations you find it has
been overcome by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt is one for which a reason exists and may arise
from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such a doubt as would exist in
the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering
all of the evidence or lack of evidence. If, from such a consideration, you
have an abiding belief in the truth of a charge, you are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt as to that charge.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 16. Phillips did not object to this instruction. The jury found him
guilty of second degree possession of stolen property, possession of methamphetamine,
and third degree theft, but acquitted him of the remaining charges.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Kurtis Phillips assigns error to the reasonable doubt jury instruction. We review a
challenge to the language of a jury instruction de novo, in the context of the instructions
as a whole. State v. Bennett, 161 Wash. 2d 303, 307, 165 P.3d 1241 (2007); In re Pers.
Restraint ofHegney, 138 Wash. App. 511, 521, 158 P.3d 1193 (2007). Jury instructions are
2
No. 33672-7-III
State v. Phillips
upheld on appeal if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not
mislead the jury, and properly inform the jury of the applicable law. State v. Bennett, 161
Wash. 2d at 307.
The trial court took its reasonable doubt jury instruction nearly verbatim from
WPIC 4.01. Kurtis Phillips argues that the language in WPIC 4.01, that defines a
reasonable doubt as "one for which a reason exists," tells jurors that they must be able to
articulate a reason for having a reasonable doubt. WPIC 4.01 (emphasis added). Thus,
he contends, the instruction erroneously informs jurors that they must have more than just
a reasonable doubt - they must be able to articulate that doubt. He asserts that the
instruction mirrors the fill-in-the-blank prosecutorial arguments that Washington courts
have invalidated because those arguments shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
Finally, he also challengesthe language describing reasonable doubt as the abiding belief
"in the truth of the charge," as a misstatement of the burden of proof.
We note that Kurtis Phillips did not object to the propriety of WPIC 4.01 at trial.
A defendant generally waives the right to appeal an error unless he or she raised an
objection at trial. State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wash. 2d 578, 583, 355 P.3d 253 (2015). One
exception to this rule is made for manifest errors affecting a constitutional right. RAP
2.5(a)(3); State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wash. 2d at 583. An error is manifest if the appellant can
show actual prejudice. State v. O'Hara, 167 Wash. 2d 91, 99, 217 P.3d 756 (2009).
3
No. 33672-7-111
State v. Phillips
Phillips claims an error of constitutional magnitude, but he shows neither error nor
prejudice.
Washington courts have approved the relevant language of WPIC 4.01 as
constitutionally sound for decades. As noted in State v. Thompson, 13 Wash. App. 1, 533
P.2d 395 (1975), the phrase "a doubt for which a reason exists"
does not direct the jury to assign a reason for their doubts, but
merely points out that their doubts must be based on reason, and not
something vague or imaginary. A phrase in this context has been declared
satisfactory in this jurisdiction for over 70 years.
Thompson, 13 Wash. App. at 5 (citing State v. Harras, 25 Wash. 416, 65 P. 774 (1901)).
Likewise, Washington's traditional "abiding belief in the truth" language has been upheld
in several cases. See WPIC 4.01, Task force cmt. at 85-86 (citing State v. Pirtle, 127
Wash. 2d 628, 657-58, 904 P.2d 245 (1995) and other cases). The Washington Supreme
Court has consistently endorsed the language ofWPIC 4.01. See, e.g., State v. Bennett,
161 Wash. 2d at 318 (the Supreme Court exercises its "inherent supervisory power" to
require trial courts to use only WPIC 4.01 in instructing juries on the burden of proof);
State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 759-60, 278 P.3d 653 (2012) (the prosecutor in closing
argument properly described reasonable doubt as a doubt for which a reason exists).
Most recently, the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wash. 2d
at 584, reaffirmed that WPIC 4.01 is the correct legal instruction on reasonable doubt.
The trial judge in Kalebaugh gave a proper instruction from WPIC 4.01 in his
4
No. 33672-7-111
State v. Phillips
preliminary remarks to prospective jurors, but then attempted to further explain that
reasonable doubt was "' a doubt for which a reason can be given.'" Kalebaugh, 183
Wash. 2d at 585 (emphasis by Supreme Court). Kalebaugh, 183 Wash. 2d at 586, disfavored
the judge's "offhand explanation," in part because that language suggested that a reason
must be given to doubt the defendant's guilt. The error was held harmless, however,
because the trial judge properly instructed the jury at the end of the case with the
language of WPIC 4.01.
Kurtis Phillips's assertion that WPIC 4.01 is similar to the "fill-in-the-blank"
prosecutorial argument held improper in State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 759-60, also fails.
The prosecutor in Emery told the jury in closing argument that "' in order for you to find
the defendant not guilty ... you'd have to say, quote, I doubt the defendant is guilty, and
my reason is blank. A doubt for which a reason exists. If you think you have a doubt,
you must fill in that blank.'" Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 750-51. This statement was
inappropriate because it subtly shifted the burden of proving the case to the defendant to
disprove. The prosecutor's improper and potentially confusing statement did not support
relief, however. Emery concluded that even if the appellants could show that the
statement was incurable, they could not show a substantial likelihood that it affected the
jury's verdict. The jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt with a WPIC 4.01
instruction, and the Court assumed that the jury followed the instruction.
5
No. 33672-7-111
State v. Phillips
CONCLUSION
We are bound by the approval of the WPIC 4.01 reasonable doubt language in
Kalebaugh and its predecessors. Accordingly, we hold that Kurtis Phillips cannot show
manifest error justifying review under RAP 2.5(a)(3) of the unpreserved objection to the
WPIC 4.01 beyond reasonable doubt instruction.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
K4rsmo, J. '(/
6