State Of Washington, V. Timothy Forrest Bass

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 80156-2-I
)
Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE
)
v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
TIMOTHY BASS, )
)
Appellant. )
)
ANDRUS, A.C.J. — In 2019, a jury convicted Timothy Bass of felony murder
arising out of the 1989 kidnapping, rape, and death of Amanda Stavik. On appeal,
Bass challenges, among other things, the admissibility of DNA evidence linking
him to the crime, the constitutionality of charging Bass under a felony murder
statute amended after the crime occurred, and the sufficiency of evidence of
kidnapping or rape.
Although we conclude the trial court erred in applying a 1990 version of the
felony murder statute to this 1989 crime, this error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. We reject Bass’s remaining arguments and affirm his
conviction.
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 80156-2-I/2
FACTS
In November 1989, 18-year-old Amanda Stavik, a freshman at Central
Washington University, returned home to rural Whatcom County with her college
roommate, Yoko, to celebrate Thanksgiving with her family. Stavik and Yoko
caught a ride home with Stavik’s former boyfriend, Rick Zender, a student at the
same college. Zender dropped Stavik and Yoko at home around 2:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, November 22, 1989. Later that afternoon, Stavik visited friends at
her former high school during the girls’ basketball team practice.
On Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 23, 1989, Stavik spent the
entire day at home with her family. Stavik did not leave the house that day.
On Friday, November 24, 1989, Stavik spent the morning hanging out and
eating leftovers with her family and taking a walk with Yoko. Stavik made plans
with Yoko to go out that evening with a high school friend, Brad Gorum, and his
friend, Tom Bass, Bass’s younger brother. Sometime between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.,
Stavik decided to go for a run with the family dog, Kyra. According to Mary 1,
Stavik’s mother, she usually ran west from their house on Strand Road, crossed
Highway 9, and continued until she reached the south fork of the Nooksack River
and then ran back the same route, a five-mile round trip. This path took Stavik
past Bass’s residence, located on Strand Road, just east of the river.
While there was conflicting evidence as to the route Stavik ran that day, her
brother, Lee, who was playing with a friend at a neighboring home, and another
1Where witnesses share a last name we refer to those parties by their first names. We do so for
clarity and intend no disrespect.
-2-
No. 80156-2-I/3
eyewitness, David Craker, both saw Stavik running east on Strand Road toward
her home around 3:00 p.m. Craker said Stavik was within minutes of her house.
When Lee returned home, however, neither Stavik nor the dog was there.
Mary, growing concerned, began calling neighbors and Stavik’s friends to see if
anyone had seen her. Lee and Mary went out and looked for her on the road, but
were unable to find her. Not long after, the dog, Kyra, returned home without
Stavik. The dog cowered, with tail tucked, and had river silt covering part of her
hind quarters. Gorum, Tom Bass, and Zender showed up to help look for Stavik
when they heard of her disappearance.
Around 5:30 p.m. Mary called the police and the Whatcom County Search
and Rescue, and Allen Pratt, a human tracker, responded and began a widespread
search for Stavik. Pratt found a disturbed spot on the shoulder of the road near
the corner close to the Stavik house. There were several footfalls, possibly from
two people, which “looked like somebody had been walking or wrestling around or
something.” The nearby grass also showed signs of disturbance. There was river
silt in a nearby ditch, similar to that found on the dog.
On Monday, November 27, 1989, law enforcement found Stavik’s naked
body in shallow, slow-moving water of the Nooksack River significantly upstream
from where Stavik was last seen on Strand Road. Investigators found footfalls and
tire tracks in a nearby field, known as the “homestead,” a local, isolated hangout
for teenagers, but they were unable to determine if these were related to the crime
because of the number of people who had been there. They found no other tracks
or signs of disturbance near the riverbank where they found Stavik’s body.
-3-
No. 80156-2-I/4
Ultimately, no crime scene was ever located and investigators were unable to
conclude where Stavik went into the river.
Stavik was naked except for her running shoes and her body was covered
in scratches on her legs, buttocks, and arms. There were more scratches on the
front and sides of her legs than on the backs of them. Many of the scratches were
parallel, indicating she was in motion when she was scratched, and the overall
condition of the scratches suggested they occurred while she was still alive.
Whatcom County medical examiner Dr. Gary Goldfogel opined that these
scratches were consistent with someone running through brush, such as the
blackberry bushes found along the riverbank where her body was found.
Dr. Goldfogel performed an autopsy on November 28, 1989. The autopsy
indicated no defensive injuries to her hands, no foreign DNA under her fingernails,
and no evidence of strangulation or evidence suggesting she had been bound in
any way. There was, however, a blunt force trauma injury to Stavik’s right
forehead. Dr. Goldfogel testified that the blow to Stavik’s head would have caused
a significant concussion, but he could not say she necessarily lost consciousness.
Dr. Goldfogel opined that the injury happened immediately before or after her
death, because “[b]y the time her heart stops and the blood pools, these things
don’t occur.”
Dr. Goldfogel concluded that the cause of death was freshwater drowning.
Based on her stomach contents, Dr. Goldfogel estimated she died within three to
four hours of her last meal. Stavik’s family testified she last ate before she went
walking with her roommate, between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., on the day she
-4-
No. 80156-2-I/5
disappeared. The evidence thus suggested she died between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m.
on Friday afternoon.
During the autopsy, Dr. Goldfogel found semen in Stavik’s vagina and,
based on the sperm count, concluded sexual intercourse had occurred no more
than 12 hours before her death. This evidence led the State to conclude that
someone had kidnapped and raped Stavik while she was out on her Friday
afternoon run and that she had died while fleeing her captor.
Dr. Goldfogel preserved the samples he collected and sent them to the FBI
and the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab for analysis. The Crime Lab
developed a male deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile from the sperm. The police
investigation led to several suspects whom they later excluded when their DNA did
not match the DNA in the sperm sample. Eventually, the case went cold.
In 2009, Detective Kevin Bowhay reopened the investigation and began
asking for DNA samples from anyone who lived in the area or who may have had
contact with Stavik near the time of her death. Over the course of the investigation,
Det. Bowhay and his team collected more than 80 DNA samples for testing.
In 2013, Det. Bowhay asked Bass for a DNA sample. When Det. Bowhay
indicated he was investigating Stavik’s death, Bass acted as if he did not know
who she was, “looked up kind of, um, kind of like he was searching his memory”
and said “oh, that was the girl that was found in the river.” Bass told Det. Bowhay
that he did not really know Stavik and initially said he did not know where she lived.
Bass refused to provide a DNA sample absent a warrant. 2
2 Testimony related to Bass’s refusal to provide a DNA sample was appropriately excluded from
trial.
-5-
No. 80156-2-I/6
Police contacted Bass again in February 2015 in relation to the Stavik
investigation. After the second contact, Bass became anxious and told his brother,
Tom, that he was worried because he had had sex with Stavik when she had been
home for Thanksgiving in 1989. Tom was shocked and asked Bass how that had
happened. Bass said “’Oh, I just went up to her and said, oh, you’re keeping fit?’
And that was it.” Bass told Tom he and Stavik had slept together a couple times
before she had gone off to college as well. Bass asked Tom to tell police that Tom
had also slept with Stavik, as if implying that Stavik had “slept around.”
Several days later, Bass and his then-wife, Gina Malone, had a
conversation with Bass’s mother, Sandra. Bass asked Sandra if they could agree
to tell the police that Bass’s deceased father had killed Stavik. Sandra covered
her face with her hands and said “no.”
At this time, Bass was working as a delivery truck driver for Franz Bakery.
Det. Bowhay reached out to Kim Wagner, the manager of the Franz Bakery outlet
store, hoping to obtain company consent to swab the delivery trucks for “touch
DNA,” or DNA left behind when people touch or use something. Det. Bowhay did
not identify the employee he was investigating. Wagner told Det. Bowhay he would
need to talk with the corporate offices in order to get permission for any such
search and provided him with a phone number for the corporate office. The
company refused to give permission to law enforcement to search its vehicles.
Over two years later, in May 2017, Det. Bowhay contacted Wagner again
and asked her for the general areas of Bass’s delivery route. Wagner asked if he
was investigating Stavik’s murder. He confirmed he was. She asked if his
-6-
No. 80156-2-I/7
investigation was related to Bass; he again confirmed it was. The detective
informed Wagner he was looking for items that Bass might cast off that may contain
his DNA. Wagner provided Det. Bowhay information regarding Bass’s normal
route, and Det. Bowhay agreed to update her if he found anything.
Shortly thereafter, Det. Bowhay surveilled Bass as he drove his route,
hoping to collect anything Bass discarded, like “cigarette butts, bottles, anything
he might have drank from, anything he might have eaten or half eaten and thrown
away.” He later told Wagner that Bass had not discarded any items. Wagner
indicated that she would see if he discarded any items at work, such as water
bottles, and asked if that would help. Det. Bowhay said “okay,” but told her that he
was not asking her to do anything for him.
In August 2017, Wagner saw Bass drink water from a plastic cup and throw
the cup away in a wastebasket in the bakery’s employee break room. She
collected that cup and stored it in a plastic bag in her desk. Two days later, she
saw Bass drink from a soda can and, again, after he discarded it in the same trash
can, she retrieved it and stored it with the cup. Det. Bowhay did not direct Wager
to take any items and did not tell her how to handle or package these items.
Wagner contacted Det. Bowhay via text to let him know she had two items
Bass had discarded in the garbage. Det. Bowhay met Wagner in the Franz Bakery
parking lot, picked up the items, and sent them to the Washington State Crime Lab
for analysis. The Crime Lab confirmed that the DNA collected from Bass’s soda
can and cup matched the male DNA collected from the semen in Stavik’s body.
-7-
No. 80156-2-I/8
Law enforcement arrested Bass for Stavik’s murder in December 2017.
After his arrest, Tom and Sandra visited Bass in jail a number of times. Tom
testified about statements Bass made during one of these visits:
He said the cops are lying, everyone is out to get him. Everyone is
lying. He said they are going to kill me in here and the main, the
main point of it is he said, “I need a strong alibi or I’m going to
prison.” He said, “Mom, maybe you can say that we were Christmas
shopping.” “Tom, do what you can.” And he said, “Maybe [other
friends of theirs] could say that they knew her back then as well. [”]
The State charged Bass with first degree felony murder under RCW
9A.32.030(1)(c)(2) and (5), alleging that Bass had caused Stavik’s death in the
course or furtherance of rape, attempted rape, kidnapping or attempted
kidnapping. In pretrial motions, the trial court denied Bass’s motion to suppress
the DNA evidence obtained from items Wagner collected at the Franz Bakery.
At trial, Bass conceded that he had sex with Stavik at some point before her
death, but argued the presence of his semen inside Stavik did not prove he had
kidnapped and raped her. To advance this theory, Bass presented evidence to
dispute Dr. Goldfogel’s time-since-intercourse testimony. Defense expert Dr.
Elizabeth Johnson testified that, after an independent examination of the sperm
samples, she believed it more likely that intercourse occurred between 24 to 48
hours before Stavik died. But Dr. Johnson could not rule out a time frame as short
as one to six hours before death.
The jury found Bass guilty and returned a special verdict finding that Bass
had committed each of the four predicate offenses. The court sentenced Bass to
320 months of incarceration.
-8-
No. 80156-2-I/9
ANALYSIS
Bass raises seven assignments of error on appeal. First, he challenges the
admissibility of the DNA evidence, arguing Wagner acted as a state agent in
conducting a warrantless search in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington
Constitution. Second, he argues there is insufficient evidence to support his felony
murder conviction. Third, Bass contends convicting him under the 1990 version of
RCW 9A.32.030 for a crime committed in 1989 violated either the prohibition
against ex post facto laws or violated his right to due process. Fourth, Bass
maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed
to object to inadmissible testimony. Fifth, he contends the trial court violated his
right to present a defense when it excluded Stavik’s diary, precluding him from
arguing that Stavik may have died by suicide. Sixth, Bass challenges the trial
court’s explanation during voir dire that witnesses who testify at trial will be those
with relevant information, arguing it was an impermissible judicial comment on the
evidence. Finally, he maintains that the cumulative effect of these errors denied
him a fair trial. We address each argument in turn.
A. Search and Seizure of Discarded DNA
Bass first challenges the admissibility of the DNA evidence linking him to
Stavik. He contends Wagner acted as a state agent when she collected his
discarded items without a warrant. We reject this argument because the trial court
found Wagner was not an agent at the time she pulled Bass’s cup and soda can
from the trash and there is substantial evidence supporting this finding.
-9-
No. 80156-2-I/10
Under the Washington Constitution “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his [or
her] private affairs, or his [or her] home invaded, without authority of law.” WASH.
CONST. art. I, § 7. Article I, section 7 “is grounded in a broad right to privacy” and
protects citizens from governmental intrusion into their private affairs without the
authority of law. State v. Chacon Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284, 291, 290 P.3d 983(2012). Both article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution “were intended as a restraint upon sovereign authority; in the absence
of state action, they have no application regardless of the scope of protection which
would otherwise be afforded under either provision.” State v. Ludvik, 40 Wn. App.
257, 262, 698 P.2d 1064 (1985). Thus, “[t]he exclusionary rule does not apply to
the acts of private individuals.” State v. Smith, 110 Wn.2d 658, 666, 756 P.2d 722(1988). But evidence discovered by a private citizen while acting as a government
agent is subject to the rule. Id.To prove a private citizen was acting as a government agent, the defendant
must show “that the State in some way ‘instigated, encouraged, counseled,
directed, or controlled’ the conduct of the private person.” Id. (quoting State v.
Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 830, 700 P.2d 319 (1985)). The “mere knowledge by the
government that a private citizen might conduct an illegal private search without
the government taking any deterrent action [is] insufficient to turn the private
search into a governmental one.” Id. (quoting State v. Agee, 15 Wn. App. 709,
714, 552 P.2d 1084 (1976)). For an agency relationship to exist, there must be “a
manifestation of consent by the principal [the police] that the agent [the informant]
- 10 -
No. 80156-2-I/11
acts for the police and under their control and consent by the informant that he or
she will conduct themselves subject to police control.” Id. at 670.
Generally, the existence of a principal-agent relationship is a question of
fact. Unruh v. Cacchiotti, 172 Wn.2d 98, 114, 257 P.3d 631 (2011); Travelers Cas.
& Sur. Co. v. Wash. Tr. Bank, 186 Wn.2d 921, 937-38, 383 P.3d 512 (2016). When
a trial court makes findings of fact regarding a private citizen’s relationship with the
police, we will uphold these findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Smith, 110 Wn.2d at 668. Substantial evidence exists when there is sufficient
evidence in the record “to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the stated
premise.” State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242, 249, 207 P.3d 1266 (2009) (quoting
State v. Reid, 98 Wn. App. 152, 156, 988 P.2d 1038 (1999)).
We then review de novo the court’s conclusions of law in denying a motion
to suppress. State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 628, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009).
We must determine whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions
of law. State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242, 249, 207 P.3d 1266 (2009).
The trial court heard live testimony from both Det. Bowhay and Wagner. At
the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court found that Wagner was not acting as
an agent of Det. Bowhay when she retrieved the plastic cup and soda can from the
garbage can at the Franz Bakery outlet store because it was Wagner who
conceived the idea to search the garbage, and Det. Bowhay did not direct, entice,
or instigate Wagner’s search. Bass assigns error to this finding. 3
3 Although the trial court identified this finding as a conclusion of law, we treat statements incorrectly
labeled as conclusions of law as findings of fact. State v. C.L.R., 40 Wn. App. 839, 843 n.4, 700
P.2d 1195 (1985); State v. Marcum, 24 Wn. App. 441, 445, 601 P.2d 975 (1979).
- 11 -
No. 80156-2-I/12
Bass also assigned error to Findings Nos. 12, 13, and 16, to the extent the
court found that Wagner “acted independently to further her own ends in seizing
Bass’s plastic cup and soda can.” The challenged findings are:
12. Ms. Wagner indicated that she would see if he
discarded any items at work such as water bottles and asked if that
would help. Detective Bowhay indicated okay, but that he was not
asking her to do anything for him.
13. Ms. Wagner testified that she felt a moral obligation to
assist in this investigation.
....
16. Detective Bowhay had not directed Ms. Wagner to take
any items and did not tell her how to handle these specific items or
how to package them.
The remaining, unchallenged findings are deemed verities on appeal. State v. Hill,
123 Wn.2d 641, 644, 870 P.2d 313 (1994).
We conclude the challenged findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Det. Bowhay and Wagner both testified that Det. Bowhay did not ask or
encourage Wagner to look for items to seize and did not tell her what type of items
to take. Wagner testified Det. Bowhay did not instruct her to find an item containing
Bass’s saliva; she made that assumption based on her husband’s experience in
doing an ancestry DNA test and on watching television crime shows. Wagner
confirmed that Det. Bowhay did not encourage her to find Bass’s DNA and gave
her no guidance in how to do so.
Bass argues that because Det. Bowhay knew of and acquiesced to
Wagner’s search for items Bass might discard at work, the trial court had
insufficient evidence supporting its finding of agency. But it is well-established in
Washington that an agency relationship requires more than mere knowledge or
- 12 -
No. 80156-2-I/13
acquiescence in a private citizen’s actions; our courts require evidence the
government in some way prompted or motivated the actions of the would-be
government agent. See State v. Clark, 48 Wn. App. 850, 856, 743 P.2d 822 (1987)
(“Before a private party may be deemed an agent of the State, however, the
government must be involved directly as a participant in the search or indirectly as
an ‘encourager’ or instigator of the private citizen’s actions.”); State v. Walter, 66
Wn. App. 862, 866, 833 P.2d 440 (1992) (concluding a film lab agent who turned
evidence over to the state was not an agent due to independent motive and “no
evidence of ‘encouragement’ by the police that would render [her] an agent.”); and
State v. Swenson, 104 Wn. App. 744, 755, 9 P.3d 933 (2000) (indicating the State
must instigate, encourage, counsel, direct, or control the conduct of the private
person for that person to be an agent and analyzing police behavior for
encouragement.). Because there is no evidence of police instigation,
encouragement, or control over Wagner’s activities, the trial court’s findings are
substantially supported by the record before us.
Bass alternatively argues Det. Bowhay instigated and encouraged
Wagner’s search by asking her for information about Bass’s delivery route, by
having repeated contacts with her to keep her updated on the outcome of police
surveillance of Bass, and then not discouraging Wagner when she volunteered to
look for items Bass may have discarded.
Det. Bowhay did ask Wagner for Bass’s delivery route. But as Wagner
testified, the route is public knowledge. “[Y]ou can sit on a street corner and you
can see the same person drive by the same time every day.” A reasonable trial
- 13 -
No. 80156-2-I/14
court could find a material difference between asking a private citizen to disclose
publicly available information and asking that same person to search garbage bins
for discarded items potentially containing a suspect’s DNA.
With regard to the argument that repeated contacts with law enforcement
transformed Wagner into a state agent, Wagner testified she had “very few”
contacts with the police over a period of two years and estimated that she talked
to them “[l]ess than ten” or “[m]aybe less than five” times. “[T]he mere fact that
there are contacts between the private person and police does not make that
person an agent.” Walter, 66 Wn. App. at 866. A reasonable trial court could find
that the number of contacts Wagner had with Det. Bowhay, over a period of two
years, was insufficient to make her an agent of law enforcement.
Finally, Det. Bowhay conceded he did not discourage Wagner from looking
for items Bass might discard at work. But as Bass admitted at the suppression
hearing, “the State has no requirement to dissuade” a private citizen from
searching for evidence. On appeal, Bass asks this court to deem Det. Bowhay’s
failure to dissuade Wagner as the equivalent of implied encouragement because
“law enforcement could encourage private citizens to conduct illegal searches so
long as they uttered the words, ‘I cannot tell you to do that.’” But the trial court
rejected Bass’s argument that Det. Bowhay, through his conduct and words, made
it clear to Wagner that he needed her help to find Bass’s DNA. And Wagner
testified she was acting on her own. The trial court clearly found this testimony
credible and we will not review on appeal the trial court’s credibility determinations.
- 14 -
No. 80156-2-I/15
See In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647, 680, 101 P.3d 1 (2004) (trial
court’s credibility determinations cannot be reviewed on appeal).
Bass insists that “Wagner would never have been involved in the
investigation or known the police wanted Bass’s DNA except for the fact that Det.
Bowhay sought her out.” Even if true, Bass cites no authority for the proposition
that a police officer, by merely sharing information with a private citizen about an
ongoing investigation, “recruited” that person into helping with the investigation.
And it is contrary to the trial court’s finding that Det. Bowhay did not “direct” Wagner
to take any items discarded by Bass.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Det. Bowhay did
not direct, entice, or control Wagner and Wagner was not acting as a state agent
when she retrieved Bass’s cup and soda can from the workplace trash can. 4
These findings in turn support the legal conclusion that Wagner’s seizure of Bass’s
discarded items and the DNA evidence was not the fruit of an unlawful search.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Bass next argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
he raped or kidnapped Stavik, or that he caused her death in the course of either
crime. We conclude the direct and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove
Bass committed these predicate offenses.
4 Although Bass challenges the trial court’s finding that Wagner had an independent motivation for
collecting Bass’s DNA, we need not reach this issue. Because we uphold the finding that the police
did not instigate, encourage, counsel, direct, or otherwise control Wagner, she cannot be a state
agent, even if she acted with the sole intent to help law enforcement. See State v. Ludvik, 40 Wn.
App. 257, 263, 698 P.2d 1064 (1985) (“a mere purpose to aid the government does not transform
an otherwise private search into a government search.”).
- 15 -
No. 80156-2-I/16
Due process requires that the State prove each element of a charged
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Chacon, 192 Wn.2d 545, 549, 431
P.3d 477 (2018). We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence. State v.
Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). Evidence is sufficient to support
a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of
fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State
v. Elmi, 166 Wn.2d 209, 214, 207 P.3d 439 (2009). A defendant’s claim of
insufficiency “admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that
reasonably can be drawn” from it. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d
1068 (1992).
Under RCW 9A.32.030(1), a person is guilty of murder in the first degree
when:
(c) He or she commits or attempts to commit the crime of either . . .
(2) rape in the first or second degree . . . or (5) kidnapping in the first
or second degree, and in the course of or in furtherance of such
crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another
participant, causes the death of a person other than one of the
participants.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he engages in sexual
intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion where he kidnaps the
victim or inflicts serious physical injury. Former RCW 9A.44.040 (1983). “Forcible
compulsion” means “physical force which overcomes resistance, or a threat,
express or implied, that places a person in fear of death or physical injury to herself
or himself or another person, or in fear that she or he or another person will be
kidnapped.” Former RCW 9A.44.010(6)(1988).
- 16 -
No. 80156-2-I/17
Kidnapping in the first degree requires that the State prove the perpetrator
intentionally abducted another person with the intent to facilitate the commission
of any felony, including rape in the first degree, or flight thereafter. Former RCW
9A.40.020(1)(1975). To “abduct” is to “restrain a person by either (a) secreting or
holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening
to use deadly force.” Former RCW 9A.40.010(2)(1975). And to “restrain” is to
“restrict a person's movements without consent and without legal authority in a
manner which interferes substantially with his liberty.” Former RCW
9A.40.010(1)(1975).
Bass argues that while the evidence is sufficient to establish he had
intercourse with Stavik, there is no evidence to establish that he raped or
kidnapped her. This argument, however, fails to address the plethora of
circumstantial evidence in the record. We consider circumstantial and direct
evidence equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99(1980). We also defer to the jury’s evaluation of witness credibility, resolution of
testimony in conflict, and weight and persuasiveness of the evidence. State v.
Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
Viewing all evidence in favor of the State and drawing all reasonable
inferences from that evidence, a jury could conclude that Bass kidnapped and
raped Stavik. First, the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that
someone abducted Stavik against her will while she was on a run. Stavik was last
seen alive at approximately 3:00 p.m., running near her house. Her body was
found several miles away in the south fork of the Nooksack River adjacent to the
- 17 -
No. 80156-2-I/18
homestead field. From this evidence, the jury could infer that she could not have
gotten from Strand Road to the area where her body was found on foot and must
have been conveyed there by car or truck.
This inference is consistent with the tracker’s testimony that he found
disturbed soil and footfalls on the side of Strand Road near where Stavik was last
seen. Just before she went missing, Stavik’s brother, Lee, saw her run past his
friend’s house on Strand Road, heading east toward their home. Allan Pratt found
signs of disturbed soil and footfalls between Lee’s friend’s house and Stavik’s
home. Her dog returned home covered in river silt similar to that found in a nearby
ditch. It would be reasonable to infer from this evidence that someone stopped in
a vehicle, wrestled Stavik into that vehicle, leaving the dog behind, and conveyed
her to an isolated place, such as the homestead field, near the spot in the river
where her body was later found.
The circumstantial evidence also supports the inference that Stavik did not
consent to being transported away from her home. First, she had evening plans
with her roommate. She was en route home to get ready for that planned outing.
Second, her body was found naked and covered in scratches consistent with her
running through the blackberry bushes. Stavik’s running clothes were never found.
As it is unusual for anyone, let alone a young woman, to remove and hide their
clothes and then to run naked through blackberry bushes in the woods in
November, it would be reasonable to infer that Stavik had not voluntarily removed
her clothing, that her clothes were taken by her captor, and she sustained
scratches while attempting to flee him. Putting this evidence together with the fact
- 18 -
No. 80156-2-I/19
that Dr. Goldfogel found Bass’s semen in Stavik’s vagina, a reasonable juror could
conclude that Bass was the perpetrator and that he committed the abduction for
the purpose of facilitating a sexual assault.
Second, there was both direct and circumstantial evidence that Bass raped
or attempted to rape Stavik. Bass admitted he had intercourse with Stavik while
she was home for Thanksgiving. Dr. Goldfogel testified that intercourse had to
have occurred within twelve hours of her death. He also testified that the contents
of her stomach indicated she had eaten within 3 to 4 hours of her death.
Eyewitnesses testified that Stavik ate lunch between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.
on the day she disappeared, and then left for a run sometime after 2:00 p.m. From
this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that Stavik died between 3:30 and
4:30 p.m. on Friday afternoon and the only opportunity Bass had to engage in
intercourse with Stavik was in the hour or two immediately preceding her death.
Further, the jury could reasonably have rejected Bass’s assertion that he
and Stavik had a secret affair. None of the witnesses at trial, including her mother,
neighbors, and friends, had ever seen her with Bass. The afternoon that she died,
she planned to return from her run so that she and Yoko could go out with Bass’s
brother, Tom, and Brad Gorum. A reasonable jury could conclude from this
evidence that it was unlikely that she met Bass to have consensual sex with him
while out on a run and before going out on a date with someone else.
Bass argues there were no vaginal wounds to support the assertion that
Stavik was the victim of a sexual assault. Dr. Goldfogel, however, testified that
based on relevant literature and his own experience examining more than a
- 19 -
No. 80156-2-I/20
hundred sexual assault victims, “it is more common to not find external or internal
injuries than to find such injuries.” The lack of such wounds does not negate the
State’s other circumstantial evidence that Stavik was raped.
Bass likewise contends the evidence was insufficient to establish an
abduction occurred because Stavik had no defensive wounds, no foreign DNA
under her fingernails, and “there were no signs she had been strangled or bound
in any way.” But the absence of defensive wounds or the use of physical restraints
does not mean Stavik was not held against her will. The evidence indicated Stavik
was physically fit. She typically ran five miles every day, 365 days a year. Yet,
Stavik was found far from her home, with marks consistent with having run naked
through blackberry bushes immediately before drowning. Stavik suffered a blunt
force trauma to her head that could have rendered Stavik unconscious. 5 Although
the traumatic injury could have occurred after Stavik entered the river, the evidence
could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Bass had abducted her.
Bass suggested below that someone else abducted and raped Stavik. But
the circumstantial evidence of the time of sexual intercourse places Bass with
Stavik after her disappearance. Bass admitted to his brother that he was in the
homestead field near where Stavik was found the same weekend that she died.
And Gina, Bass’s ex-wife, testified that she and Bass had seen Stavik run past the
Bass residence from Bass’s upstairs bedroom window. A reasonable jury could
find that Bass, aware of Stavik’s running routine, approached Stavik while she was
5Dr. Goldfogel was unable to conclusively determine whether she sustained the blunt force trauma
before or after her death, but the jury could have reasonably concluded that it happened prior to
her death.
- 20 -
No. 80156-2-I/21
out running, and then conveyed her against her will to an area near where she was
found, such as the homestead field, and did so with the intent to have intercourse
with her.
The jury was also presented with evidence of Bass’s consciousness of guilt.
Bass confessed to Tom that he had sex with Stavik. After the police took an
interest in him, Bass pretended not to remember Stavik. He asked his mother if
they could tell the police that Bass’s deceased father had killed Stavik, or if she
would say Bass was with her Christmas shopping on the day Stavik died.
Relying on State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1, 7, 309 P.3d 318 (2013), Bass
maintains that the evidence against him—particularly his later inculpatory
statements—is equivocal and thus insufficient. But Vasquez addressed whether
mere possession of a forged social security card was sufficient, by itself, to
establish the defendant’s intent to injure or defraud was required to convict the
defendant of forgery under RCW 9A.60.020. Our Supreme Court held that the
“mere possession of forged documents, without evidence of an intent to injure or
defraud, cannot sustain a forgery conviction.” Id. at 13.
The jury here was not asked to infer guilt from a single piece of equivocal
evidence. The State had evidence of Bass’s sexual attraction to Stavik, his
absence from the family home at the time of her death, his admitted presence in
the homestead field that weekend, and his concession to having had intercourse
with Stavik that weekend. The State had evidence this intercourse could have
occurred only after she left for her run and in a two-hour window before she died.
The State presented evidence, from the scratches on Stavik’s naked body, strongly
- 21 -
No. 80156-2-I/22
suggesting that she had not consented to this intercourse. We conclude there was
sufficient evidence before the jury to convict Bass of felony murder based on the
predicate offenses of rape or kidnapping.
C. Ex Post Facto and Due Process
Bass next contends his conviction under the 1990 version of the felony
murder statute violated either the prohibition against the ex post facto laws or his
right to due process.
Bass was charged and convicted for felony murder under the current
version of RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c), which was amended in 1990, after the crime
occurred. In 1989, former RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c) (1975) required prosecutors to
prove that the defendant “commit[ted] or attempt[ed] to commit [a predicate crime]
and in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight
therefrom, he . . . cause[d] the death of a person.” By contrast, the 1990
amendment to the statute requires the state to prove that a perpetrator
“commit[ted] or attempt[ed] to commit [a predicate crime] and in the course of or
in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, . . .
cause[d] the death of a person.” RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c).
The ex post facto clauses of the United States and Washington
Constitutions forbid the State from enacting any law that imposes punishment for
an act that was not punishable when committed, or inflicts a greater punishment
than could have been imposed at the time the crime was committed. State v.
Ward, 123 Wn.2d 488, 496, 869 P.2d 1062 (1994). A law violates the ex post facto
clause if it (1) is substantive, rather than merely procedural, (2) is retrospective,
- 22 -
No. 80156-2-I/23
applying to events that occurred before the law's enactment, and (3)
disadvantages the person affected by it. Ward, at 498. Whether a law violates the
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws is a question we review de
novo. Ludvigsen v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 660, 668, 174 P.3d 43 (2007). “A
statute is presumed constitutional and the party challenging it has the burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” State v.
Boyd, 1 Wn. App. 2d 501, 507, 408 P.3d 362 (2017).
“As a general rule, courts presume that statutes operate prospectively
unless contrary legislative intent is express or implied.” State v. Humphrey, 139
Wn.2d 53, 60, 983 P.2d 1118 (1999). RCW 10.01.040 requires courts to presume
criminal statutes, or amendments to criminal statutes, apply prospectively only
unless the legislature expressly states otherwise:
Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or
repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred
while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in
force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary
intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act . .
..
There is nothing to indicate the legislature intended the 1990 amendment to RCW
9A.32.030(1)(c) to apply retrospectively to conduct antedating the statutory
amendment. We thus conclude the legislature did not intend to apply the 1990
version of RCW 9A.32.030 to events that occurred before the law’s enactment.
The Washington Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in State v. Aho,
137 Wn.2d 736, 975 P.2d 512 (1999). In that case, the defendant was found guilty
of child molestation under a statute that did not take effect until approximately a
year and a half after Aho allegedly began engaging in the criminalized conduct.
- 23 -
No. 80156-2-I/24
Id. at 739-40. On appeal, Aho argued that his conviction violated ex post facto
prohibitions of the state and federal constitutions because the jury might have
convicted him for acts occurring before the effective date of the criminal statute.
Id. at 740. The Washington Supreme Court rejected the ex post facto argument,
concluding that, because the legislature intended the law to apply to conduct
occurring after its enactment, the statute did not apply retrospectively and
application of the statute could not be attributed to legislative action. Id. at 742-
43. The court held that “the ex post facto prohibition applies to the legislative
branch, and thus judicial decisions which are applied retroactively may raise due
process concerns, but do not fall within the ex post facto clause itself.” Id. at 742
(citing Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 191, 97 S. Ct. 990, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260(1977)). For this reason, Bass’s ex post facto argument fails.
But Bass also raises a due process challenge. Both the Washington and
the United States Constitutions mandate that no person may be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. CONST. amends. V, XIV, § 1;
WASH. CONST., art. I, § 3. The due process clause requires fair notice of proscribed
criminal conduct and standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. City of Richland
v. Michel, 89 Wn. App. 764, 770, 950 P.2d 10 (1998) (citing State v. Becker, 132
Wn.2d 54, 61, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997)). Generally, criminal statutes operate
prospectively only to give fair warning that a violation carries specific
consequences. State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459, 470, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007).
Bass was convicted for acts occurring on November 24, 1989, more than
six months before the June 7, 1990 effective date of the amended RCW 9A.32.030.
- 24 -
No. 80156-2-I/25
See LAWS OF 1990, ch. 200, § 1. Bass contends it violates due process to convict
him under the 1990 version of RCW 9A.32.030, rather than the version in effect in
1989 at the time of Stavik’s death.
Aho is instructive, but not directly on point. The Aho court concluded Aho’s
convictions violated due process because the crime of child molestation did not
exist until midway through the charging period alleged by the State. It was thus
possible that Aho was convicted of child molestation based on acts occurring
before the child molestation statute went into effect. Id. at 744. Unlike in Aho,
there was a felony murder statute in existence before the legislature modified it in
1990. And the change was small—the legislature changed the language from “in
the course of and in furtherance of” to “in the course of or in the furtherance of.”
The question is whether this change mattered. In analyzing Bass’s due process
claim, we draw analogies to ex post facto case law, just as the Supreme Court did
in Aho, because the “underlying principles are similar.” Id. at 742.
A retrospective change in the law violates the ex post facto provision of the
constitution if the change alters the ingredients of the offense, the ultimate facts
necessary to establish guilt, or the degree of proof necessary. State v. Edwards,
104 Wn.2d 63, 71, 701 P.2d 508 (1985). Under Aho, a retrospective application
of a criminal law would violate due process under these same circumstances. If
the 1990 amendment altered the elements of the offense of felony murder, then it
would violate Bass’s due process rights to convict him under that statute.
We agree with Bass that the 1990 amendment did alter the elements of the
offense. Under the law in effect in 1989, the State had to prove that a defendant
- 25 -
No. 80156-2-I/26
caused a victim’s death both in the course of and in furtherance of the commission
of another felony. After 1990, the State only had to prove that a defendant caused
a victim’s death either in the course of, or in furtherance of, the commission of
another felony.
The State contends there was no due process violation here because the
same proof standard applied under the pre-1990 and 1990 versions of the felony
murder statute. It bases this argument on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
the language “in furtherance of” in the older version of the statute as articulated in
State v. Leech, 114 Wn.2d 700, 790 P.2d 160 (1990), abrogated on other grounds
by In re Pers. Restraint of Andress, 147 Wn.2d 602, 56 P.3d 981 (2002). In that
case, the defendant was convicted of felony murder when a firefighter died while
attempting to extinguish a fire the defendant intentionally started. The court of
appeals reversed the conviction because there was no proof the defendant caused
the firefighter’s death “in furtherance of” the arson, which we defined narrowly as
“acting to promote or advance” the arson. State v. Leech, 54 Wn. App. 597, 602,
775 P.2d 463 (1989). The court of appeals agreed that the firefighter’s death was
caused “‘in the course of,’ i.e., during, the fire.” Id. In a footnote, we explicitly
rejected the argument that the statute required only that the State prove “in the
course of” or “in furtherance of.” It stated “[i]f the Legislature did not intend to
require the State to prove that the killing occurred both ‘in the course of’ and ‘in
furtherance of’, then it is free to amend the statute accordingly.” Id. at n.1.
The Supreme Court adopted a much broader interpretation of “in
furtherance of,” defining it this way: “if the homicide [was] within the ‘res gestae’ of
- 26 -
No. 80156-2-I/27
the felony, i.e., if there was a close proximity in terms of time and distance between
the felony and the homicide.” Leech, 114 Wn.2d at 706. But the Supreme Court
did not hold that “in the course of” and “in the furtherance of” meant the same thing.
The only issue presented was whether the firefighter’s death occurred “in the
furtherance of the arson.” Id. at 704. The court did not disavow our comment that
the “and” between the two phrases created two separate elements the State had
to prove.
While the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the “in furtherance of”
language indicates that any death that occurs “in the course of” the commission of
a felony inevitably also occurs “in furtherance of” that same felony, the converse
is not necessarily true. The legislature appears to have recognized this problem
with the statute because the legislative history to the 1990 amendment referred to
the court of appeals decision in Leech when it changed the language from “and”
to “or.” S.B. REP. ON SUBSTITUTE S.B. 6467, 51st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1990).
We conclude the modification to the statute in 1990 was material and did change
the elements of the crime. Because the 1990 amendment to the felony murder
statute changed the elements of that crime and modified what the State had to
prove to obtain the conviction, Bass’s due process rights were violated.
Recognizing that there is a due process violation, we must address the
effect of such error. Most constitutional errors do not require automatic reversal of
a conviction and are subject to a harmless error analysis. State v. Banks, 149
Wn.2d 38, 43, 65 P.3d 1198 (2003). The due process violation that occurred here
is subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis. See State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d
- 27 -
No. 80156-2-I/28
874, 885-86, 246 P.3d 796 (2011) (“[a] violation of the due process right to be
present [during trial] is subject to harmless error analysis.”); State v. Brown, 147
Wn.2d 330, 344, 58 P.3d 889 (2002) (jury instructions that omit or misstate an
element of a charged crime are subject to harmless error analysis). Under the
constitutional harmless error standard, prejudice is presumed and the State bears
the burden of proving it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370, 380, 300 P.3d 400 (2013).
The State has met that burden here. Under Leech, the jury would have had
to find that Bass caused Stavik’s death “during” a rape, attempted rape,
kidnapping, or attempted kidnapping. While the evidence supports a finding that
Bass caused Stavik’s death “in furtherance of” a rape or attempted rape, because
her death occurred close in time and location to the rape, it does not support a
finding that Bass caused the death “during” the rape. This lack of evidence,
however, does not matter in this case because the jury also found Bass committed
kidnapping or attempted kidnapping and the evidence supports a finding that Bass
caused Stavik’s death “during” that crime. Kidnapping is a continuing course of
conduct crime:
Because “abduct” is defined as restraining in some manner and
“restrain” is defined as restricting a person’s movements in a way
that “substantially interferes with his or her liberty,” it follows that a
crime of kidnapping continues so long as the victim’s liberty is
substantially interfered with. The use of the phrases “restrict a
person’s movements” and “in a manner which interferes substantially
with his or her liberty” contemplates a continued state of being
abducted until a person’s liberty is no longer substantially interfered
with.
- 28 -
No. 80156-2-I/29
State v. Classen, 4 Wn. App. 2d 520, 532, 422 P.3d 489 (2018). The crime of
kidnapping thus continues until the person abducted reaches safety.
The evidence places Bass with Stavik during the last hour of her life, at a
time when she ran naked through blackberry bushes near the river where she
drowned. The only reasonable inference the jury could draw from this evidence is
that Stavik died after being raped by but while fleeing Bass. The evidence supports
no other reasonable inference. Stavik died fleeing her captor and her death thus
occurred “during” her kidnapping.
Because Bass caused Stavik’s death during the commission of one of the
predicate felony offenses, i.e., the kidnapping, her death also occurred in “close
proximity in terms of time and distance” to that kidnapping. Thus, the State has
demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Bass
caused Stavik’s death both in the course of, and in the furtherance of, her
kidnapping. Any error in convicting Bass under the 1990 version of felony murder
was harmless error.
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Bass argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial
attorneys failed to object to Dr. Goldfogel’s testimony in which he recounted
opinions formed by other, out-of-court experts, and failed to object to statements
made by his brother, Tom, and his ex-wife, Gina Malone. We reject both
arguments.
The Sixth Amendment and article I, section 22 of the Washington
Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of
- 29 -
No. 80156-2-I/30
counsel. State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450, 457, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017). To prevail
on an effective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that (1)
defense counsel’s representation was deficient in that it fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the
defendant. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)
(applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d
674 (1984)).
The decision whether and when to object to trial testimony is a “classic
example[ ] of trial tactics.” State v. Crow, 8 Wn. App. 2d 480, 508, 438 P.3d 541(2019), review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1038 (2019). A reviewing court presumes that
a “failure to object was the product of legitimate trial strategy or tactics.” State v.
Johnston, 143 Wn. App. 1, 20, 177 P.3d 1127 (2007). To rebut this presumption,
“the defendant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any ‘conceivable
legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance.’” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17,
42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130,
101 P.3d 80 (2004)). Prejudice exists if “‘but for counsel's deficient performance,
the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.’” Estes, at 458 (quoting
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862, 215 P.3d 177 (2009)).
Statements of Non-Testifying Experts
Dr. Goldfogel testified that, as part of Stavik’s autopsy, he collected a
number of routine samples from different areas of her body. Dr. Goldfogel
explained that fluids he collected were smeared on glass microscope slides, which
he turned over to a cytotechnologist to stain. This cytotechnologist and a
- 30 -
No. 80156-2-I/31
microbiology technologist examined the stained slides for the presence of sperm
before returning them to Dr. Goldfogel. Dr. Goldfogel explained
The cytotech stains them, evaluates them, interprets them, and then
turns it over for me to do it. I did it and then I had Dr. Gibb, who was
still working in the lab, a more than 30-year experienced medical
director and pathologist, independently look at them and we all
agreed that there were very many sperm on the vaginal slide . . . .
All of us independently looked at it. All of us agreed.
Defense counsel did not object to this testimony.
Bass contends his attorneys should have objected to Dr. Goldfogel’s
statement that two independent experts agreed with his conclusions regarding the
number of sperm found in the swab. Bass argues this evidence was both
inadmissible hearsay and violated his right to confront out-of-court expert
witnesses who effectively testified against him.
Bass is correct that Dr. Goldfogel’s testimony included hearsay. Hearsay is
an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. ER
801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible unless an exception or exclusion applies. ER
802. “Generally, one expert may not relay the opinion of another nontestifying
expert without running afoul of the hearsay rule.” State v. Brown, 145 Wn. App.
62, 73, 184 P.3d 1284 (2008).
However, Bass has not overcome the presumption that defense counsel
had a legitimate, tactical reason for not raising a hearsay objection. First, under
ER 703, experts may base their opinion testimony on facts and data that is not
admissible in evidence if of a type reasonably relied on by experts in a particular
field in forming opinions. State v. Lui, 153 Wn. App. 304, 321, 221 P.3d 948 (2009).
ER 705 gives the trial court discretion to permit an expert to relate hearsay or
- 31 -
No. 80156-2-I/32
otherwise inadmissible evidence to the jury for the limited purpose of explaining
the reasons for that expert’s opinion. Id. Had counsel objected to Dr. Goldfogel’s
testimony about the input he received from his forensic team, it is highly probable
the court would have overruled that objection and provided a limiting instruction,
had Bass requested one.
Second, the defense team may have chosen not to object because their
forensic expert also testified that she relied on other experts in forming opinions
that differed from those of Dr. Goldfogel. In disagreeing with Dr. Goldfogel’s
assessment of the slides, defense expert Dr. Johnson testified that both a senior
criminalist with 20 years of lab experience and the owner of the lab reviewed the
slides she was given to evaluate, and they agreed with her conclusions that the
number of visible sperm was much lower than that counted by Dr. Goldfogel.
Bass’s attorneys bolstered their expert’s opinions through this same strategy.
It is conceivable that defense counsel chose not to object on Sixth
Amendment grounds for similar reasons. A person accused of a criminal offense
has the right to confront the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; WASH.
CONST. art. I, § 22. The confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial
statements by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless the witness is unable
to testify and the accused had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).
Under well-established case law, an expert who provides opinion testimony
partially based on the work of others, does not violate a defendant’s confrontation
rights as long as the testifying expert’s opinions are independently derived from
- 32 -
No. 80156-2-I/33
their own significant expertise and analysis. Lui, 153 Wn. App. at 325. It is
conceivable defense counsel strategically chose not to object on Sixth Amendment
grounds because they knew Dr. Goldfogel’s opinions were independently formed
and based on his own analysis and expertise. It is not deficient performance to
decide not to object to testimony when counsel reasonably believes the objection
would be overruled. See In re Davis, 152 Wn.2d at 714 (When a defendant bases
his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on trial counsel's failure to object, the
defendant must show the trial court would have sustained the objection). Counsel
was not ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Goldfogel’s testimony.
Statements by Tom and Gina
Next, Bass contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
trial attorneys failed to object to testimony that Bass maintains invaded the
province of the jury and denied his constitutional right to a jury trial.
The right to have factual questions decided by the jury is crucial to the right
to a jury trial. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; W ASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 21, 22. No witness,
lay or expert, “may testify to his opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, whether by
direct statement or inference.” State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336, 348, 754 P.2d 12(1987). “[E]xpressions of personal belief, as to the guilt of the defendant, the intent
of the accused, or the veracity of witnesses” are clearly inappropriate for opinion
testimony in criminal trials. State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 591, 183 P.3d
267 (2008). Such testimony may constitute reversible error because it “violates
the defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial, which includes the independent
determination of the facts by the jury.” State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199, 340
- 33 -
No. 80156-2-I/34
P.3d 213 (2014). A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of opinion evidence is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 758, 30 P.3d
1278 (2001).
Bass points to two statements, one by his brother, Tom, and another by his
ex-wife, Gina, that he argues were implicit opinion testimony as to Bass’s guilt.
First, Tom testified that when he and their mother visited Bass in jail, Bass asked
them to provide him with a fabricated alibi. Immediately after leaving the jail, Tom
expressed concerns to his mother that Bass would ask them to lie for him. The
prosecutor asked if that “cause[d] a break in [Tom’s] relationship with [Bass]” to
which Tom replied that this incident “was the start of it” and indicated that he
stopped visiting his brother shortly thereafter. Defense counsel did not object. 6
Second, Gina, testified that she and Bass had been married for 28 years before
divorcing in March of 2019. Again, defense counsel did not object to this testimony.
Bass argues that both witnesses’ testimony constituted improper opinion
testimony because they only served the purpose of demonstrating that Tom and
Gina believed Bass to be guilty. Bass relies on State v. Johnson, 152 Wn. App.
924, 219 P.3d 958 (2009) to support this proposition. In Johnson, the defendant
was being tried for child molestation. At trial, the prosecution repeatedly elicited
testimony about how Johnson’s wife, when confronted with proof of the
accusations against her husband, broke down into tears and acknowledged that it
must be true. Id. 932-33. The appellate court reversed his conviction, concluding
6 While defense counsel did not object to the specific testimony identified here, defense counsel
moved to prohibit Tom from testifying about his subjective belief in Bass’s guilt before Tom’s
testimony began. The trial court granted this motion.
- 34 -
No. 80156-2-I/35
the wife’s opinion as to the veracity of the child victim’s version of events served
no purpose beyond prejudicing the jury.
Johnson is distinguishable from this case. Johnson involved repeated,
explicit testimony that the wife believed her husband to be guilty. Here, the jury
only heard that the relationships Bass had enjoyed with his brother and ex-wife
deteriorated following his arrest and the jury heard each statement only once.
Neither testified that the relationships ended because they believed him to be guilty
and the inference that Bass’s family members believed Bass to be guilty is
speculative at best. The more reasonable inference from Tom’s testimony is that
the brothers became estranged because Bass asked Tom and their mother to lie
to law enforcement. And it is just as reasonable for the jury to infer from Gina’s
testimony that she divorced Bass because she learned he had had sexual relations
with Stavik while the two were engaged to be married as to infer she believed him
guilty of Stavik’s murder. Neither of the challenged statements was an
impermissible opinion on Bass’s guilt. As a result, defense counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object to the testimony.
E. Right to Present a Defense
Bass next challenges the trial court’s exclusion of Stavik’s diary. He argues
the diary showed Stavik’s state of mind in the year preceding her death, which, he
contends, suggests she was suicidal. By excluding the diary, Bass maintains, the
trial court denied him the ability to argue Stavik died by suicide, rather than by
homicide. We reject this argument.
- 35 -
No. 80156-2-I/36
We review constitutional challenges to evidentiary rulings utilizing a two-
step process. State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-98, 453 P.3d 696 (2019); State
v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641, 648-49, 389 P.3d 462 (2017). First, we review a trial
court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. We defer to the trial court's
evidentiary rulings unless “no reasonable person would take the view adopted by
the trial court.” Clark, 187 Wn.2d. at 648 (quoting State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d
904, 914, 16 P.3d 626 (2001)). Second, we determine whether such rulings
violated a defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment de novo. Id. at 648-49.
“If the court excluded relevant defense evidence, we determine as a matter of law
whether the exclusion violated the constitutional right to present a defense.” Id.The United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution
guarantee defendants the right to present a defense. U.S. CONST., amend. VI,
XIV; W ASH. CONST., art. I, § 3; State v. Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467, 474, 880
P.2d 517 (1994). This right is basic but not absolute. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d
713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010). Defendants have no constitutional right to present
irrelevant evidence. Id.ER 402 provides that evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that
is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.” ER 401. The proponent of the
evidence bears the burden of establishing its relevance and materiality. State v.
Pacheco, 107 Wn.2d 59, 67, 726 P.2d 981 (1986); State v. Bedada, 13 Wn. App.
2d 185, 193, 463 P.3d 125 (2020). A trial court properly excludes evidence that is
- 36 -
No. 80156-2-I/37
“remote, vague, speculative, or argumentative because otherwise ‘all manner of
argumentative and speculative evidence will be adduced,’ greatly confusing the
issue and delaying the trial.” State v. Kilgore, 107 Wn. App. 160, 185, 26 P.3d 308(2001) (quoting State v. Jones, 67 Wn.2d 506, 512, 408 P.2d 247 (1965)).
Bass sought to admit entries from Stavik’s diary to establish her state of
mind under ER 803(a)(3). He argues that because Dr. Goldfogel was unable to
conclude Stavik’s death was the result of a homicide, these diary entries are direct
or circumstantial evidence of an alternative manner of death—suicide.
In the diary, Stavik wrote about her relationships with others, including
friends whom she deeply admired, some with whom she quarreled, her mother,
and her boyfriend. She expressed concerns about her weight, her caffeine
consumption, her sleeping habits, and her future. There are only three diary
entries that arguably support Bass’s contention that Stavik experienced suicidal
thoughts at some point during the last year of her life. On March 17, 1989, she
wrote in her diary that she thought about suicide. On April 2, 1989, she again
wrote that she was depressed and hated life. And sometime shortly after June 23,
1989, she questioned whether life was worthwhile.
The trial court reviewed the last 18 pages of the diary, which includes
approximately 28 entries from the last year of Stavik’s life. The trial court made
extensive written findings describing the content of each entry and addressing their
admissibility. It concluded that 19 entries were irrelevant because they did not
demonstrate or convey “a state of mind indicative of depression or suicidality.” The
court indicated several other entries “might be relevant,” but concluded they were
- 37 -
No. 80156-2-I/38
inadmissible because they rested on theories that were speculative and lacked an
adequate foundation.
The trial court described the three entries describing thoughts of
hopelessness as “significant” but ultimately determined they were inadmissible
because “the theory that she was depressed and that her depression equates to
either attempted suicide, or suicide itself, lacks sufficient foundation and is
speculative.” The court concluded:
Whether viewed individually or in the aggregate, the diary entries
paint a picture of a young woman who was anxious about her
appearance and her relationships, a typical condition for young
people often described as “teen angst.” While certain entries may
be evidence that she was clinically depressed or suicidal, such a
conclusion does not naturally or necessarily flow from her statements
absent some other supporting factor or factors, the significant danger
being that, without sufficient foundation, the diary and its entries
would be confusing or misleading to the jury.
The trial court’s relevance rulings are not an abuse of discretion. To be
admissible under ER 803(a)(3), there are “two relevances” which must coexist.
U.S. v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1973). First, the victim’s state of mind
must be relevant to some material issue in the case, such as whether the victim
died by suicide. Id. Second, the extrajudicial statement itself must be probative
on the question of the victim’s purported state of mind. Id. Certainly, whether
Stavik’s death was a homicide or a suicide was relevant to a material issue in this
felony murder case. But the trial court did not err in concluding the entries were
not probative of a suicidal state of mind.
First, a reasonable judge could conclude that the diary entries in which
Stavik discussed her feelings about her friends, family members, weight and
- 38 -
No. 80156-2-I/39
physical fitness, and possible career choices might provide a glimpse into Stavik’s
state of mind on the days of the entries, but none tended to prove, either directly
or circumstantially, that she was suicidal, either at the time she wrote the entries
or in November 1989 when she died.
Second, a reasonable judge could also conclude that the entries explicitly
expressing feelings of depression or suicidality were too remote in time to bear on
Stavik’s state of mind in late November 1989. See State v. Johnson, 61 Wn. App.
235, 242, 809 P.2d 764 (1991) (statement made one day after crime inadmissible
because not probative of defendant’s state of mind on day of crime where no
evidence indicated she had same state of mind on earlier date). Between the last
June 1989 entry in which Stavik recounted feelings of depression and her
November 1989 death, she wrote with great enthusiasm about college life,
upcoming travel, get-togethers with friends, and family events. In addition, none
of the entries ever discuss a plan or intent to act on any feelings of suicidality.
Evaluating the speculative nature of Stavik’s diary entries is not unlike
evaluating the speculative nature of “other suspect” evidence. When a defendant
seeks to offer evidence that someone else actually perpetrated the crime for which
that defendant is charged, the defendant must show “some combination of facts or
circumstances [that] point to a nonspeculative link between the other suspect and
the charged crime.” State v. Franklin, 180 Wn.2d 371, 381, 325 P.3d 159 (2014).
If the other suspect evidence is speculative, or merely raises a suspicion, it is
properly excluded as irrelevant. Id. at 379.
- 39 -
No. 80156-2-I/40
In this case, Bass has not demonstrated a combination of facts or
circumstances pointing to a nonspeculative link between Stavik’s diary entries and
the manner of her death on November 24, 1989. The only evidence on which Bass
relied for the proposition that Stavik died by suicide was the diary entries and the
fact that her death could not conclusively be ruled a homicide. 7 Because the link
was too speculative, the trial court correctly concluded the diary entries were
irrelevant.
Because Bass has no right to present irrelevant evidence, the trial court did
not violate his right to present a defense by excluding Stavik’s diary.
F. Judicial Comment During Voir Dire
Bass contends the trial court impermissibly commented on the evidence
when it stated, in response to a prospective juror’s question, that witnesses called
to testify at trial have testimony that is relevant. We disagree.
Article IV, section 16 of the Washington Constitution provides that “[j]udges
shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but
shall declare the law.” This constitutional provision prohibits a judge “from
‘conveying to the jury his or her personal attitudes toward the merits of the case’
or instructing a jury that ‘matters of fact have been established as a matter of law.’”
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 721, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006) (quoting State v. Becker,
132 Wn.2d 54, 64, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997)).
7Dr. Goldfogel testified that he could not conclusively conclude Stavik’s manner of death was a
homicide, accident, suicide, or a result of natural causes and he therefore ruled the manner of
death was “undetermined.”
- 40 -
No. 80156-2-I/41
We apply a two-step analysis to determine if a judicial comment requires
reversal of a conviction. Levy, 156 Wn.2d at 723. First, we examine the facts and
circumstances of the case to determine whether a court's conduct or remark rises
to a comment on the evidence. State v. Sivins, 138 Wn. App. 52, 58, 155 P.3d
982 (2007). “It is sufficient if a judge's personal feelings about a case are merely
implied.” Id. If we conclude the court made an improper comment on the evidence,
we presume the comment is prejudicial, “and the burden is on the State to show
that the defendant was not prejudiced, unless the record affirmatively shows that
no prejudice could have resulted.” Levy, 156 Wn.2d at 723.
During voir dire, one potential juror asked the court “Can anybody just be a
witness? What are the requirements to be a witness?” The court explained to the
venire panel
The answer to the question is a person can be a witness if they have
testimony that’s relevant, um, that’s sort of the basic rubric for
whether or not a person can testify. If they don’t have testimony
that’s relevant, then there would be an objection from one of the
parties and it would be up to the court to determine whether the
person could testify at all or whether the person can testify about a
particular thing.
The court asked counsel if they felt it had misstated anything. Neither counsel
objected. When the juror asked further about “professional witnesses,” the court
said
The parties have a right and indeed an obligation to set forth relevant
evidence. The burden is on the State, the defense doesn’t have any
obligation to provide evidence. If the parties prior to any proceeding
. . . thought that there was a reason that someone being called as a
witness just as a matter of, that was obvious didn't think that person
should testify, then they could bring that matter before the court on
what's called a pretrial motion, that's not something that a jury would
ever see. What the jury may see is objection to testimony in court
- 41 -
No. 80156-2-I/42
and it's up to the attorneys to make properly made objections and it's
up to the court to decide whether or not a person can testify either at
all or in a particular area.
According to Bass, these comments suggested to the jury that “the judge
deemed relevant everything a testifying witness had to say” and that Bass’s failure
to object to testimony meant the testimony must be relevant to his guilt.
We cannot agree. The court’s statement that it would determine whether a
witness had relevant information does not amount to a judicial comment on the
evidence. The statement did not reveal the court's “attitudes toward the merits of
the case” or reflect the court’s personal opinion of any disputed issue before it.
Levy, 156 Wn.2d at 721; see Sivins, 138 Wn. App. at 58. The comments were
nothing more than an explanation of ER 402 as applied to witness testimony. Even
if such comment were to amount to an improper comment on the evidence, no
prejudice could have resulted from it. The statement that witnesses have relevant
information is neutral and applies equally to both prosecution and defense
witnesses. There was no improper comment on the evidence.
G. Cumulative Error
Finally, Bass argues that the cumulative effect of the challenged errors
bolstered the prosecution’s case while undermining his defense and thus require
reversal. The cumulative error doctrine requires reversal when the combined
effect of several errors denies the defendant a fair trial. State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d
252, 279, 149 P.3d 646 (2006). “The doctrine does not apply where the errors are
few and have little or no effect on the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 279. Bass has
identified only one error, which we determined was harmless. Because Bass
- 42 -
No. 80156-2-I/43
cannot show multiple errors affected the outcome of his trial, his cumulative error
claim fails.
We affirm.
WE CONCUR:
- 43 -