State Of Washington v. Brian Crute

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
February 20, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 50366-2-II
Respondent,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
BRIAN ANTHONY CRUTE,
Appellant.
MAXA, C.J. – Brian Crute appeals his convictions of third degree assault and obstructing
a law enforcement officer. The convictions arose out of an incident in which Crute physically
resisted when officers attempted to detain him because of his erratic behavior.
We hold that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded expert
testimony regarding Crute’s mental illness and his capacity to form the required intent to commit
the offenses; (2) the trial court’s instruction on third degree assault, which did not require the
State to prove that Crute knew that the assault victim was a law enforcement officer, was proper;
(3) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove both of his convictions; and (4) Crute’s
claims asserted in his statement of additional grounds (SAG) have no merit. Accordingly, we
affirm Crute’s convictions.
FACTS
On February 28, 2016, two Tacoma police officers responded to a call to check on the
welfare of a man wandering in a Tacoma neighborhood. The officers were in uniform and in a
No. 50366-2-II
marked police car. The officers saw Crute, who was shirtless and sweating profusely, running
around in the street and acting erratically.
The officers activated the overhead lights on their police car and attempted to detain
Crute to speak with him. Crute physically resisted, including attempting unsuccessfully to punch
one of the officers. Ultimately, five uniformed police officers, four firemen, and three taser
charges were required to subdue Crute and get him into an ambulance.
The State charged Crute with two counts of third degree assault involving two different
officers and one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer.
Before trial, Dr. Phyllis Knopp conducted a forensic evaluation to determine if Crute had
the requisite mental state for the charged crimes. She concluded that Crute had the capacity to
form the requisite mental state.
Dr. Brett Trowbridge also evaluated Crute. The State filed a motion to exclude Dr.
Trowbridge as an expert witness. In argument, both the State and Crute quoted from Dr.
Trowbridge’s report.1 Dr. Trowbridge stated, “It appears to me Mr. Crute suffers from
schizophrenia and from PTSD.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 25. But he further stated,
At this point, I don’t have sufficient information to be able to state within
reasonable scientific certainty that Mr. Crute’s mental illness or intoxication
diminished his capacity to form the requisite intent for the crimes charged at the
time of the alleged incident, but it seems possible. And it’s consistent with Greater
Lakes’ previous findings. Given that the police themselves felt that he was either
on drugs or mentally ill, [in] my opinion a diminished capacity defense is a realistic
possibility.
RP at 32-33 (emphasis added).
1
The report itself is not in the record and the parties provided no other specific information
about Dr. Trowbridge’s opinions.
2
No. 50366-2-II
The trial court granted the State’s motion. Because the trial court excluded Dr.
Trowbridge’s testimony, the court also granted the State’s motion to preclude reference to any
mental disease or defect that Crute may have been diagnosed with.
At trial, the officers testified to the facts outlined above. Crute testified that at least at
first, he did not know that the people accosting him were police officers. He thought he was
being robbed, and thought that he might be shot in the back of the head if he laid down on the
ground. Later he stated that the police officers were not doing their job and called them
terrorists.
A jury found Crute guilty of one count of third degree assault, acquitted him of the other
count of third degree assault, and found him guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer.
Crute appeals his convictions.
ANALYSIS
A. EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
Crute claims that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Trowbridge’s testimony about
Crute’s mental illness and his capacity to form the required intent to commit the charged
offenses because the testimony was relevant and would have been helpful to the jury. We
disagree.
1. Legal Principles
Crute claims that Dr. Trowbridge’s testimony should have been admitted to support his
diminished capacity defense. Admissibility of expert testimony regarding diminished capacity is
determined under ER 401, ER 402, and ER 702. State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d 904, 917, 921, 16
P.3d 626 (2001).
3
No. 50366-2-II
ER 702 provides that “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as
an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form
of an opinion or otherwise.” Testimony should be admitted under ER 702 when (1) the witness
is qualified as an expert, (2) the expert’s opinion is based on a theory generally accepted by the
scientific community, and (3) the expert’s testimony is helpful to the trier of fact. State v. Rafay,
168 Wash. App. 734, 784, 285 P.3d 83 (2012). Testimony is helpful when it concerns issues
outside common knowledge of laypersons and is not otherwise misleading. See id.
Expert testimony must be relevant to be helpful to the jury. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d at 917-
18, 921. ER 401 defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having 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.” Evidence that is not relevant is
inadmissible. ER 402.
We review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision regarding the admission of
expert testimony under ER 702. State v. Green, 182 Wash. App. 133, 146, 328 P.3d 988 (2014).
An abuse of discretion occurs in this context when no reasonable person would adopt the trial
court’s ruling. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d at 913-14.
The Supreme Court in Atsbeha established the standard for admissibility of expert
testimony regarding diminished capacity. 142 Wash. 2d at 914-21. “To maintain a diminished
capacity defense, a defendant must produce expert testimony demonstrating that a mental
disorder, not amounting to insanity, impaired the defendant’s ability to form the culpable mental
state to commit the crime charged.” Id. at 921. Further, to satisfy either ER 401 or ER 702 the
expert testimony “must have the tendency to make it more probable than not” that the
4
No. 50366-2-II
defendant’s mental disorder impaired his or her ability to form the required mental state. Id. at
918.
The court emphasized that to be relevant and therefore helpful to the trier of fact under
ER 702, the expert’s opinion must show a reasonable relationship between a defendant’s mental
disorder and his ability to form the mental state charged in the crime. Id. at 921.
It is not enough that a defendant may be diagnosed as suffering from a particular
mental disorder. The diagnosis must, under the facts of the case, be capable of
forensic application in order to help the trier of fact assess the defendant’s mental
state at the time of the crime. The opinion concerning a defendant’s mental disorder
must reasonably relate to impairment of the ability to form the culpable mental state
to commit the crime charged.
Id.; see also State v. Clark, 187 Wash. 2d 641, 651, 389 P.3d 462 (2017) (“diminished capacity
requires an expert diagnosis of a mental disorder and expert opinion testimony connecting the
mental disorder to the defendant’s inability to form a culpable mental state in a particular case”).
Crute relies on State v. Mitchell, 102 Wash. App. 21, 997 P.2d 373 (2000), which was
decided before Atsbeha but not mentioned in that case. In Mitchell, the defendant was charged
with third degree assault after punching a law enforcement officer. Id. at 23. The defendant’s
expert was prepared to testify that he was “100 percent certain” that the defendant suffered from
a mental disorder, probably a schizophrenic disorder. Id. at 24. In addition, he concluded that
the defendant suffered from the severe mental disorder at the time of the incident. Id. However,
the expert could not say with reasonable certainty that the disorder actually caused the
defendant’s capacity to be diminished at the time of the incident, only that it was possible. Id. at
24, 26. The trial court excluded the testimony. Id. at 24.
The appellate court reversed, holding that the expert’s testimony was admissible under
ER 702 even though the expert could not say whether the defendant’s mental disorder was
5
No. 50366-2-II
actually affecting the defendant’s capacity at the time of the incident. Id. at 27-29. The court
stated:
In a diminished capacity case, the expert’s opinion must be helpful to the trier of
fact in assessing the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime. An opinion
is helpful if it explains how the mental disorder relates to the asserted impairment
of capacity. Under this standard, it is not necessary that the expert be able to state
an opinion that the mental disorder actually did produce the asserted impairment at
the time in question – only that it could have, and if so, how that disorder operates.
Id. at 27 (citations omitted).
The court emphasized that the jury could have considered the expert’s testimony and the
defendant’s behavior at the time of the incident and determined as the ultimate fact finder
whether the defendant’s capacity was diminished. Id.
The jury, after hearing all the evidence, may find probability where the expert saw
only possibility, and may thereby conclude that the defendant’s capacity was
diminished even if the expert did not so conclude.
Id. at 28.
Mitchell has not been overruled or found to be inconsistent with Atsbeha. The State
does not argue on appeal that this court should disregard Mitchell.
2. Analysis
Mitchell holds that expert testimony regarding diminished capacity can be admissible
even if the expert cannot state with reasonable certainty that the defendant’s mental disorder
actually impaired his or her capacity at the time of the offense. 102 Wash. App. at 27-29. The
expert need only state that the mental disorder “could have” produced the asserted impairment at
the time of the offense.
The court in Atsbeha did not expressly hold that an expert must state any opinion
regarding diminished capacity on a more probable than not basis for the expert’s opinion to be
admissible, and therefore Atsbeha is not necessarily inconsistent with Mitchell. But the court in
6
No. 50366-2-II
Atsbeha did state that the expert’s opinion must have a “tendency” to show more probably than
not that the defendant’s mental disorder impaired his or her capacity to form the required mental
state to commit the charged offense. 142 Wash. 2d at 918. The expert’s opinion must reasonably
relate the defendant’s mental disorder to the impairment of his or her ability to form a culpable
mental state. Id. at 918, 921.
Crute argues that the facts here are almost identical to the facts in Mitchell, and therefore
under Mitchell the trial court should have admitted Dr. Trowbridge’s testimony. However, there
is one significant difference between the expert’s opinion in Mitchell and Dr. Trowbridge’s
opinion. In Mitchell, the expert would have testified with reasonable certainty that the defendant
had a mental disorder and that he suffered from the disorder at the time of the offense. 102 Wn.
App. at 24, 28. Applying the Atsbeha standard, this testimony reasonably related the mental
disorder to the defendant’s capacity to form the required mental state to commit the charged
offense.
But the limited portion of Dr. Trowbridge’s report that is in the record is not sufficient to
meet the Atsbeha standard. Dr. Trowbridge’s proposed testimony was that Crute had a mental
disorder, but he did not state that Crute was suffering from the disorder at the time of the offense.
As a result, Dr. Trowbridge’s testimony provided no direct connection between the mental
disorder and any diminished capacity. Instead, Dr. Trowbridge stated that he did not have
sufficient information to make that connection.
Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Green, 182 Wash. App. at 146. Because Dr.
Trowbridge did not give an opinion that Crute suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the
incident with the officers, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the
expert testimony. Under Atsbeha, Dr. Trowbridge’s opinion did not have a tendency to show
7
No. 50366-2-II
more probably than not that Crute’s mental disorder impaired his capacity to form the required
mental state to commit the charged offenses. See 142 Wash. 2d at 918.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Trowbridge’s
expert testimony.
B. JURY INSTRUCTION ON THIRD DEGREE ASSAULT
Crute argues that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that for the third degree
assault charges, the State needed to prove that he knew that his victim was a law enforcement
officer. We disagree.
1. Legal Principles
In general, we review a trial court’s choice of jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Hathaway, 161 Wash. App. 634, 647, 251 P.3d 253 (2011). However, we review de novo
the refusal to give an instruction based on a ruling of law. State v. Cordero, 170 Wash. App. 351,
369, 284 P.3d 773 (2012).
Jury instructions are appropriate if they allow a defendant to argue his or her theories of
the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly state the applicable law. State v.
Aguirre, 168 Wash. 2d 350, 363-64, 229 P.3d 669 (2010). It is not error to refuse to give a specific
instruction when a more general instruction adequately explains the law and allows each party to
argue its theories of the case. Hathaway, 161 Wash. App. at 647.
2. Analysis
Under RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g), a person is guilty of third degree assault when he or she
“[a]ssaults a law enforcement officer or other employee of a law enforcement agency who was
performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault.” The trial court’s instruction
8
No. 50366-2-II
mirrored this statute. The applicable to convict instructions did not require the State to prove
that Crute knew the alleged victim was a law enforcement officer.
Crute argues the court’s instruction was erroneous because an essential element of third
degree assault is that the defendant knew that the victim was a law enforcement officer.
However, in State v. Brown, the Supreme Court specifically held that under the plain statutory
language, the knowledge that the person assaulted is a police officer is not an element of RCW
9A.36.031(1)(g). 140 Wash. 2d 456, 466-68, 998 P.2d 321 (2000).
Crute argues that the court’s holding in Brown is incorrect and that Brown should be
overruled. But we are bound to follow Supreme Court precedent. State v. Winborne, 4 Wn.
App. 2d 147, 175, 420 P.3d 707 (2018). We apply Brown as controlling authority.
We hold that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury of the elements of third
degree assault.
C. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Crute claims that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions
because it failed to prove that he knew the persons he was resisting were law enforcement
officers. We disagree.
1. Standard of Review
The test for determining 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. Homan, 181 Wash. 2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 (2014). In a
sufficiency of the evidence claim, the defendant admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Id. at 106. Credibility determinations are made
9
No. 50366-2-II
by the trier of fact and are not subject to review. State v. Miller, 179 Wash. App. 91, 105, 316 P.3d
1143 (2014). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable. Id.
2. Analysis
a. Third Degree Assault
Crute argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew the persons he
allegedly assaulted were law enforcement officers. But as discussed above, knowledge that the
assault victim is a law enforcement officer is not an element of third degree assault. Therefore,
we reject this argument.
b. Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer
Under RCW 9A.76.020(1), a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer “if
the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of
his or her official powers or duties.” The trial court instructed the jury that the State had to prove
that (1) “the defendant willfully hindered, delayed, or obstructed a law enforcement officer in
the discharge of the law enforcement officer’s official powers or duties,” and (2) “the defendant
knew that the law enforcement officer was discharging official duties at the time.” Clerk’s
Papers at 89.
Crute argues that the State failed to prove that he knew he was obstructing law
enforcement officers because he repeatedly asked for the police to come. At trial, Crute
suggested that he thought the officers were not acting in their official capacities, characterizing
them as terrorists.
But the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Crute knew he was
obstructing law enforcement officers performing their official duties. First, all five officers were
in uniforms identifying them as police officers. Second, the first officers to arrive activated the
10
No. 50366-2-II
fully marked police car’s overhead lights, identified themselves as police officers, and asked to
speak with Crute. And third, the officers informed Crute numerous times that they were police
officers. This evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to infer that Crute knew he was dealing
with law enforcement officers.
We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Crute of obstructing a law
enforcement officer.
D. SAG CLAIMS
In his SAG, Crute makes three assertions. First, he asserts that the trial court should have
admitted a 911 recording identifying him because the description was inaccurate. This argument
is beyond our scope of review because this argument was not made at trial, and the 911 call is
not part of the record on appeal. We may consider only facts contained in the record. State v.
Estes, 188 Wash. 2d 450, 467, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017).
Second, Crute asserts that his arrest was illegal because it was supposed to be a welfare
check, not a high-risk felony stop of a pedestrian who did not fit the description given by the 911
caller. Again, no such challenge was raised at trial and it relies in part on evidence outside the
record. Therefore, we cannot review it.
Third, Crute asserts that neither the prosecutor nor the trial court read him his patient
hospital rights, the prosecutor accused him of using PCP (phencyclidine) without the drug
appearing in his urinalysis, and the prosecutor improperly argued against a drug offender
sentencing alternative (DOSA). To the extent we characterize this as a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct, we find no merit to the claim because Crute waived any such claims by not
objecting at trial and he fails to show that any alleged error was so flagrant and ill-intentioned
11
No. 50366-2-II
that it could not have been cured with a proper instruction. State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 760-
61, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).
To the extent Crute is claiming that he should have received a DOSA, the trial court
found that he was ineligible and instead ordered that the Department of Corrections make drug
and mental health evaluations and treatment part of his community custody. The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in failing to give Crute a DOSA. See State v. Hender, 180 Wash. App. 895,
900, 324 P.3d 780 (2014) (DOSA not reviewable). Further, it appears that Crute was ineligible
for a DOSA because he had a previous DOSA in 2010. See RCW 9.94A.660(1)(g)2.
CONCLUSION
We affirm Crute’s convictions of third degree assault and obstructing a law enforcement
officer.
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.
MAXA, C.J.
We concur:
JOHANSON, J.
LEE, J.
2
RCW 9.94A.660(1)(g) was amended in 2016. LAWS OF 2016, Spec. Sess., ch. 29, § 524.
Because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we cite to the current version of the
statute.
12