State Of Washington, Resp. v. Daniel E. Luse, Jr., App. ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 69209-7-1
Respondent,
v. DIVISION ONE
DANIEL EDWARD LUSE, JR., UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: August 5, 2013
Leach, C.J. — Daniel Luse challenges his conviction for felony
harassment, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we
conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Luse guilty as charged. We
affirm.
Background
In 2011, Patricia Neuroth met Daniel Luse. They became friends and
began living together in Neuroth's house. Luse helped pay the rent. They lived
together for six to eight months but separated after Luse assaulted Neuroth in
February of 2012. While housed in the Snohomish County Jail, Luse began
having suicidal thoughts and asked to speak to a psychologist. On March 11,
2012, psychologist Elizabeth Bellmer met with Luse. Luse told Bellmer, "I have
thoughts in my head about suicide and harming myself after release." He further
reported, "I've lost my girlfriend, and my heart is broken. I basically don't want to
No. 69209-7-1 / 2
live anymore without her." Luse explained to Bellmer that he had been in an
eight-month relationship with his girl friend, living at her house and helping to
make payments on the house. Luse then told Bellmer,
I'm going to go out there with a gun. And I have a lot of ugliness in
my head. I've had thoughts of taking her down with me. Bad
thoughts. The devil is in my head and I can't get him out. I need
closure on this situation to see if she lied to me. If she did, I'll go in
the house and shoot him and wait until she gets home.
Bellmer contacted Deputy King and related her concerns. Although
Bellmer considered Luse's statement a serious threat and was concerned for his
ex-girlfriend's safety, Luse never identified the "girlfriend" or the "him" referenced
in his statements. Also, Luse never said he was going to "kill" anyone.
Deputy King identified Neuroth as the likely girl friend that Luse
mentioned. Because he could not reach her, he left a message asking her to
contact Deputy Covington, who met with Neuroth and told her about Luse's
statements. Covington did not recall whether he read or showed Bellmer's
written statement to Neuroth or whether he simply gave Neuroth a paraphrased
version. Neuroth "fell apart" when she heard about what Luse said in his
conversation with Bellmer. She knew that Luse had access to weapons.
A jury convicted Luse of felony harassment. Luse appeals.
Analysis
Luse argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to show he
made a true threat to kill Neuroth and that by his words or conduct he placed
Neuroth in reasonable fear he would carry out the threat. In reviewing a
No. 69209-7-1 / 3
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all facts and reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.1 A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the
State's evidence.2
Luse contends that the State failed to prove he threatened to kill Neuroth
and failed to prove that Neuroth's fear resulted from anything he actually said.
To convict Luse of felony harassment, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt (1) that Luse knowingly threatened to cause bodily harm to Neuroth and
(2) that his words or conduct placed Neuroth in reasonable fear that he would
carry out this threat.3
The first element required proving that Luse made a "true threat" to kill
Neuroth.4 The court instructed the jury:
To be a true threat, a statement or act must occur in a
context or under such circumstances where a reasonable person,
in the position of the speaker, would foresee that the statement or
act would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to
carry out the threat rather than as something said in jest or idle
talk.t5]
1State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 881, 822 P.2d 177 (1991).
2State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
3 State v. Hanson, 126 Wn. App 276, 280, 108 P. 3d 177 (2005) (citing
RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i), (1)(b); State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1,10, 904 P. 2d 754(1995)).
4 State v. Schaler, 169 Wn.2d 274, 283-88, 236 P.3d 858 (2010).
5 See State v. Phuong, Wn. App. , 299 P.3d 37, 63 nn.38-39
(2013), petition for review filed, No. 88889-2 (Wash. May 31, 2013).
No. 69209-7-1/4
Luse argues that the record contains no evidence of a "true threat" to kill
Neuroth. However, because Luse's conversation with Bellmer concerned his
suicidal thoughts, a rational juror could reasonably infer that Luse's description of
"thoughts" about taking someone "down" with him constitutes a "serious
expression" of an intent to kill that person. Additionally, Luse made statements
about "going out there with a gun" and waiting at his girl friend's house. Given
the context of his statements, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could find
that Luse made a "true threat."
Additionally, from the following evidence, a rational juror could reasonably
decide that Luse's statements about his relationship with his girl friend indicate
that he was referring to Neuroth. He indicated that he was in an eight-month
relationship and helped to pay the rent on his girl friend's house. Neuroth said
that she and Luse had been together for six or seven months, maybe a little
longer, and that he helped to pay the rent.
Luse also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that his
words or acts placed Neuroth in reasonable fear that he would kill her. He
asserts that the evidence showed Neuroth became fearful not because of what
he actually told Bellmer but because of Deputy Covington's description of what
he said. Luse claims that Deputy Covington's interpretation of what he said did
not reflect what he told Bellmer.
When the trial court denied Luse's motion to dismiss, it noted that it was
unclear what the deputy told Neuroth but concluded that the State presented
No. 69209-7-1 / 5
enough evidence "from which a jury could reasonably conclude that there was a
threat to kill Ms. Neuroth which placed her in fear." A rational trier of fact could
have found that Luse's words placed Neuroth in reasonable fear that Luse would
carry out his threat. Covington reviewed Bellmer's statement immediately before
relating Luse's threat to Neuroth. Additionally, Bellmer quoted Luse's threat
verbatim in her statement to the police. Although Neuroth did not recall the exact
words that Covington used, she remembered that he told her Luse said "he was
going to get a gun and he was going to kill me and anybody else that was with
me." Even if Covington's interpretation of Luse's threat was exaggerated, a
rational trier of fact could find that Luse's statements placed Neuroth in
reasonable fear that he would carry out the threat because they suggested that
Luse intended to commit suicide and "take down" Neuroth with him.
Luse has filed a statement of additional grounds, but his arguments lack
clarity. He seems to question Officer Covington's credibility, perhaps alleging
that Covington deliberately falsified his account about what Luse said. Luse also
argues that if Covington had not relayed these allegedly false statements to
Neuroth, the State would have lacked sufficient evidence to file charges against
him. To the extent that Luse challenges Covington's veracity or credibility, the
jury resolved those issues adversely to him. This court does not review
credibility issues. Therefore, we do not address this claim.
No. 69209-7-1 / 6
Conclusion
Because sufficient evidence supports Luse's conviction for felony
harassment, we affirm.
/£*/ cf.
WE CONCUR:
r
l