State v. McEnroe ( 2013 )

FILE
IN CLERICS O,ICI This oplnlcinwas filed for record
llJII8E COURr, nn 01-..lllft:IM at ': ct'l n ( . ·t..--5~t ·:3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 88410-2
) (consolidated with
v. ) No. 88411-1)
)
JOSEPH T. McENROE, ) En Bane
)
Respondent. )
) Filed _SEP _0: 5 2013
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
MICHELE KRISTEN ANDERSON, )
)
Respondent. )
WIGGINS, J.-ln this direct review of the trial court's dismissal of notices of
special death penalty sentencing proceedings, the King County prosecuting attorney
asks us to decide whether he violated Washington's capital punishment statutes by
considering the strength of evidence against respondents Joseph McEnroe and
Michele Anderson when he determined to seek the death penalty for the shooting
deaths of six people. We hold that the prosecuting attorney did not violate the
statutory scheme.
No. 8841 0-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
RCW 10.95.040(1) directs the prosecutor to "file written notice of a special
sentencing proceeding to determine whether or not the death penalty should be
imposed when there is reason to believe that there are not sufficient mitigating
circumstances to merit leniency." The prosecutor in this case complied with the
statute in question by considering mitigating circumstances and determining that
there was reason to believe that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to
merit leniency. That the prosecutor also considered the strength of its case in
making this determination is of no consequence. We therefore reverse the trial court
and remand with instructions to reinstate the notices of special sentencing
proceeding so that the cases against McEnroe and Anderson may proceed to trial.
Because we resolve this case by interpreting RCW 10.95.040, we decline to
address the delicate constitutional issue of separation of powers raised by the
parties. Cmty. Telecable of Seattle, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 35, 41, 186
P.3d 1032 (2008) ("We will avoid deciding constitutional questions where a case may
be fairly resolved on other grounds.").
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Factual background
In Carnation, Washington, on December 24, 2007, six members of the
Anderson family were gunned down in their home: respondent Michele Anderson's
parents, Judy and Wayne Anderson; respondent Anderson's brother, Scott, and
sister-in-law, Erika Anderson; and respondent's five-year-old niece, Olivia Anderson,
and three-year-old nephew, Nathan Anderson. All victims were shot at least once,
and Judy, Scott, Erika, and Olivia were shot multiple times in the head and body.
2
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
A friend of Judy Anderson's discovered this horrific scene two days later after
Judy failed to show for work or respond to phone calls. Police quickly responded.
During the investigation, McEnroe and Anderson arrived at the scene. McEnroe and
Anderson initially told police that they had gone to Las Vegas to get married on
December 24, but, upon police questioning, they changed their story and confessed
to the murders.
On December 28, 2007, the State charged Anderson and McEnroe with six
counts of aggravated first degree murder. Under RCW 10.95.040, if the prosecuting
attorney concluded that there were insufficient mitigating factors to merit leniency, he
was required to file a notice of special sentencing proceeding to consider the death
penalty no later than 30 days after charging Anderson and McEnroe. The trial court
granted a motion to extend this time limit. In January 2008, the prosecutor wrote to
defense counsel to extend the time frame for the consideration of mitigating
circumstances and asking the defense to submit mitigation materials by April 10,
2008. Following further extensions, in October 2008 the prosecutor filed a notice of
special sentencing proceeding to determine whether he would seek the death
penalty. At the same time, he released a statement in which he indicated that he was
obliged to consider mitigating evidence, but that "[g]iven the magnitude of these
alleged crimes, the slaying of three generations of a family, and particularly the
slaying of two young children, [he] f[ou]nd that there [were] not sufficient reasons to
keep the death penalty from being considered by the [jurors who] will ultimately hear
these matters." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 48.
3
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
II. Pretrial proceedings
Following the prosecutor's notices of special sentencing proceeding, defense
counsel began seeking information that formed the basis of the prosecutor's
decision-making in this case and in other capital cases. Defense counsel brought
numerous motions under various theories to probe the prosecutor's reasons for
seeking the death penalty. This hotly contested issue culminated in respondents'
November 2012 motion to dismiss notices of special sentencing proceeding, arguing
that the prosecutor's consideration of the strength of the evidence against McEnroe
and Anderson violated their rights to equal protection of the laws and due process.
In January 2013, the trial court granted the respondents' motion and struck
the notices of special sentencing proceeding on two grounds. First, the trial court
concluded that the prosecutor violated RCW 10.95.040 by considering the strength
of the evidence against McEnroe and Anderson in deciding to file notices of special
sentencing proceeding. The trial court reasoned that the prosecutor could consider
only the circumstances of the case and the mitigation information, but could not
consider the strength of the State's case. Second, the trial court ruled that by
considering the strength of evidence, the prosecutor violated equal protection of the
law by "seek[ing] varying degrees of punishment when proving identical criminal
elements." CP at 605. The trial court based its equal protection ruling on
hypothetical defendants whose crimes and mitigating circumstances were identical
but against only one of whom the State had strong evidence. Because the strength
of the cases against these hypothetically identical defendants would comprise the
only reason that one would face the possibility of the death penalty and the other
4
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
would not, the trial court concluded that considering the strength of evidence
violated equal protection. See id. at 609 ("In a scenario suggestive of Camus, a
defendant's early confession and cooperation could become his downfall.").
Ill. Discretionary and direct review
The State promptly sought discretionary review of the trial court's ruling
striking the notices of special sentencing proceeding. The State also moved for
acc'elerated review and to consolidate the cases against each respondent. The
Court of Appeals certified the cases for transfer to this court pursuant to RCW
2.06.030(d) 1 and RAP 4.4. 2 We consolidated the cases and granted discretionary
review. 3
ANALYSIS
We hold that prosecutors may consider the strength of their cases in
determining whether to file a notice of special sentencing proceeding seeking the
death penalty pursuant to RCW 10.95.040. The statute does not prohibit
consideration of the strength of the State's case and as long as prosecutors
consider whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency, they
1
RCW 2.06.030 provides in pertinent part that the Court of Appeals "shall have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction in all cases except: ... (d) cases involving fundamental and urgent issues
of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination .... "
2
RAP 4.4 provides in pertinent part that "[t]he Supreme Court, to promote the orderly
administration of justice may, ... upon certification by the Court of Appeals, transfer a case from
the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court .... "
3
While the motion for discretionary review was pending, the trial court denied the State's motion
to stay the effective date of the order striking notices of special sentencing proceeding. The trial
court also issued a follow-up ruling justifying its initial order striking the notices, struck the trial
date, excused jurors, and stayed further proceedings pending the outcome of this discretionary
review. The State made an emergency motion in this court requesting the stay of the trial court's
ruling striking the notices, which our commissioner granted.
5
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
fully comply with their statutory duties. We encourage holistic, individualized
prosecutorial assessments in determining whether capital punishment is appropriate
in order to fulfill equal protection guaranties and to promote sound public policy.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and remand this case with instructions to
reinstate the notices of special sentencing proceeding.
I. RCW 10.95.040 requires the prosecutor to determine only whether mitigating
circumstances are insufficient to merit leniency
Our '"fundamental objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and carry
out the intent of the legislature."' State v. Veliz, 176 Wn.2d 849, 854, 298 P.3d 75(2013) (quoting State v. Morales, 173 Wn.2d 560, 567, 269 P.3d 263 (2012)). "'We
construe the meaning of a statute by reading it in its entirety and consider the entire
sequence of all statutes relating to the same subject matter."' /d.
RCW 10.95.040(1) provides:
If a person is charged with aggravated first degree murder as defined
by RCW 10.95.020, the prosecuting attorney shall file written notice of
a special sentencing proceeding to determine whether or not the death
penalty should be imposed when there is reason to believe that there
are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency.
This statute requires the prosecutor to make only one determination: whether "there
is reason to believe that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit
leniency." /d. If the prosecutor believes that mitigating circumstances are insufficient,
the prosecutor must file written notice of a special sentencing proceeding.
RCW 10.95.040(1) does not define "mitigating circumstances" or provide any
guidance as to when mitigating circumstances are sufficient to merit leniency. But
reading the statutory scheme as a whole, we consider other provisions in chapter
6
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
10.95 RCW, which also employ the term "mitigating circumstances" in relation to
what the jury may consider in a special sentencing proceeding. RCW 10.95.060(4)
requires a jury considering the death penalty to answer the question, '"Having in
mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to
merit leniency?"' RCW 10.95.070 elaborates that, in answering this question, "the
jury, or the court if a jury is waived, may consider any relevant factors" in addition to
the eight enumerated factors contained in RCW 10.95.070. 4 If the trier of fact "finds
that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency, the sentence
4
These factors include:
(1) Whether the defendant has or does not have a significant history,
either as a juvenile or an adult, of prior criminal activity;
(2) Whether the murder was committed while the defendant was under
the influence of extreme mental disturbance;
(3) Whether the victim consented to the act of murder;
(4) Whether the defendant was an accomplice to a murder committed by
another person where the defendant's participation in the murder was relatively
minor;
(5) Whether the defendant acted under duress or domination of another
person;
(6) Whether, at the time of the murder, the capacity of the defendant to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or to conform his or her
conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of
mental disease or defect. However, a person found to have an intellectual
disability under RCW 10.95.030(2) may in no case be sentenced to death;
(7) Whether the age of the defendant at the time of the crime calls for
leniency; and
(8) Whether there is a likelihood that the defendant will pose a danger to
others in the future.
RCW 10.95.070(1)-.070(8).
7
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
shall be death." RCW 10.95.030(2). Thus, we interpret the term "mitigating
circumstances" in chapter 10.95 RCW to mean the factors listed in RCW 10.95.070
as well as any relevant factor.
We may also resort to the dictionary definition of "mitigate." State v. Kintz, 169
Wn.2d 537, 547, 238 P.3d 470 (201 0). The dictionary defines the verb "mitigate" as
"to make less severe, violent, cruel, intense, painful." WEBSTER's THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1447 (2002). Thus, a mitigating circumstance is a
circumstance that requires a less severe result. In the capital punishment context, it
is reasonable to believe that the legislature intended "mitigating circumstances" to
include the eight factors listed in RCW 10.95.070 and any other relevant factor, i.e.,
those circumstances that require a punishment less severe than death.
II. The prosecutor complied with his statutory duty by making a determination
based on whether mitigating circumstances were sufficient to merit leniency
When he decided to seek the death penalty against McEnroe and Anderson,
the prosecutor considered mitigation information and determined that there were not
sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency. After making this determination,
he filed notices of special sentencing proceeding as the statute directed.
Accordingly, we hold that the prosecutor fulfilled his duties under RCW 10.95.040.
The prosecutor made clear statements regarding his consideration of
mitigating circumstances. In the press release announcing his plans to seek capital
punishment, the prosecutor acknowledged that he "has the obligation in potential
capital murder cases to consider all relevant information about the crime and to
weigh that against any mitigating evidence favoring the charged defendants." CP at
8
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
48. In performing this weighing exercise, the prosecutor did exactly as instructed by
the statute: he found "that there [were] not sufficient reasons to keep the death
penalty from being considered" by the jury. /d. Furthermore, in response to defense
counsel's request for clarification regarding the information the prosecutor
considered, the prosecutor indicated that he "considered the facts and
circumstances alleged that form[ed] the basis for charging" the respondents and
also "considered mitigation materials submitted by defense counsel." /d. at 52. Thus,
we conclude that the prosecutor did as the statute directed: he considered whether
the mitigating circumstances sufficed to merit leniency.
Ill. Prosecutors may consider the strength of evidence when determining whether
to file a notice of special sentencing proceeding
Aside from considering reasons to believe that mitigating circumstances are
not sufficient to merit leniency, RCW 10.95.040(1) neither requires nor precludes
consideration of any other information. Logically speaking, in making the
determination of the sufficiency of mitigating circumstances, prosecutors must
realistically consider other factors that weigh against mitigation. Nothing in the
statutory language suggests that the strength of the evidence cannot be one of
these other factors. Indeed, in many respects it makes good sense for prosecutors
to reflect on the strength of their cases before deciding to seek the ultimate
punishment.
We have acknowledged the importance of the strength of evidence in the
prosecutorial decision to seek the death penalty before. Recently, in State v. Davis,
we noted, "Mitigating evidence is not the only reason a prosecutor might decide not
9
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
to seek the death penalty. The strength of the State's case often influences that
decision." 175 Wn.2d 287, 357, 290 P.3d 43 (2012) (emphasis added). Less
recently, we "assume[d] that prosecutors exercise their discretion in a manner [that]
reflects their judgment concerning the seriousness of the crime or insufficiency of
the evidence." State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664, 700, 683 P.2d 571 (1984) (emphasis
added). Davis and Rupe demonstrate that although we have never squarely decided
whether prosecutors can weigh the strength of evidence against mitigating
circumstances when deciding to file a notice of special sentencing proceeding, we
have certainly assumed that they can.
Respondents assert that RCW 10.95.040 mandates that prosecutors consider
only mitigating circumstances in making the determination to seek the death penalty.
The trial court too indicated that the prosecutor should not weigh the strength of the
State's case against the mitigating circumstances because mitigation is focused
solely on the moral culpability of the defendant. Essentially, these arguments boil
down to a requirement that prosecutors consider mitigating circumstances in a
vacuum. Such a requirement is illogical for several reasons.
First, as discussed, RCW 10.95.040(1) contains no prohibition on what the
prosecutor can consider in making his or her determination to file a notice of special
sentencing proceeding. The only statutory requirement is that the prosecutor file the
notice when mitigating circumstances are not sufficient to merit leniency. The trial
10
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
court and respondents point to no textual prohibition against considering the
strength of evidence in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. 5
Second, the trial court determined and respondents concede that prosecutors
may consider the facts and circumstances of the case alongside mitigation
evidence. This concession contradicts respondents' theory that the statute mandates
that only mitigation evidence be considered. After all, RCW 10.95.040(1) provides no
textual authority for the consideration of the facts and circumstances or the strength
of evidence. Moreover, the strength of a particular case might very well be a fact or
circumstance of the case. In short, if prosecutors can consider the facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be anomalous to preclude them from
considering the strength of their evidence.
Third, as the State argues, the determination whether to seek the death
penalty should require an elected prosecutor "to inform him- or herself as thoroughly
and completely as possible." Opening Br. of Pet'r at 34. We agree. Prosecutors, in
exercising their executive functions, better serve the public by holistically
considering all facts and circumstances related to the crime, which, realistically,
include the strength of evidence, rather than forcing tunnel vision. Given the time
and expense it takes to prepare and try a capital case, it makes good sense for a
prosecutor to seek the death penalty only when the prosecutor believes there is a
good chance of obtaining a conviction.
5
Respondents and the trial court believe Washington's capital punishment scheme is unique
because it directs prosecutors to consider mitigating circumstances rather than aggravating
circumstances in coming to a decision on seeking capital punishment. Yet it remains unclear
why the uniqueness of the statute should effect a different statutory interpretation.
11
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
We hold that Washington prosecutors may consider the strength of evidence,
along with the facts and circumstances of the crime, when they determine whether
there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency.
IV. RCW 10.95.040 does not grant prosecutors unfettered discretion or violate
the principles of equal protection
Since the inception of the current Washington capital sentencing scheme, we
have upheld the statutes' constitutionality despite equal protection challenges that
they provide prosecuting attorneys with too much discretion. Today we reaffirm our
jurisprudence that prosecutors who make individualized assessments in deciding
whether to seek capital punishment do not violate these constitutional principles.
The first "unfettered discretion" challenge came in State v. Campbell, 103
Wn.2d 1, 24,691 P.2d 929 (1984). There, we noted that "equal protection of the laws
is denied when a prosecutor is permitted to seek varying degrees of punishment
when proving identical criminal elements." !d. at 25. But '"no constitutional defect
exists when the crimes [that] the prosecutor has discretion to charge have different
elements."' /d. (quoting State v. Wanrow, 91 Wn.2d 301, 312, 588 P.2d 1320 (1978)).
Because prosecutors must consider mitigating circumstances and because only in
the absence or insufficiency of such circumstances may prosecutors seek death, we
held that RCW 10.95.040(1) was constitutional. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d at 25.
We have since expanded on the Campbell analysis, requiring prosecutors to
"perform individualized weighing of the mitigating factors" and noting that "an
inflexible policy is not permitted." State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 642, 904 P.2d 245(1995); see also In re. Pers. Restraint of Harris, 111 Wn.2d 691, 693, 763 P.2d 82312
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
(1988). Thus, in order for a prosecutor to constitutionally exercise discretion when
deciding to file notices of special sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor must
engage in an individualized weighing of mitigating factors. Because individualized
weighing enables prosecuting attorneys to come to a decision tailored to the unique
circumstances of every case, there is not standardless discretion and therefore no
equal protection violation. See, e.g., State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580, 625, 132 P.3d
80 (2006); State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 671, 845 P.2d 289 (1993); State v.
Bartholomew, 104 Wn.2d 844, 848-49, 710 P.2d 196 (1985); Rupe, 101 Wn.2d at
700.
In striking the notices of special sentencing proceeding on the basis of equal
protection, the trial court did not engage in the above analysis based in our case law,
but instead set forth the following hypothetical:
Consider two defendants who separately commit identical offenses in
King County, Washington. The first defendant commits his offense in a
jurisdiction that has ample resources and an excellent investigation
unit. As a result, the evidence in that case is substantial and the case
against that defendant is strong on the merits. The second defendant,
however, commits his offense in a jurisdiction that has fewer resources
and an undertrained, overtaxed police force. The evidence in that case
is comparatively sparse, and the case against that defendant is weak
on the merits. Both defendants are subsequently charged with
aggravated murder in the first degree. Both defendants submit identical
evidence of mitigation to the prosecutor. The prosecutor declines to file
the notice of intent as to the second defendant but does file the notice
as to the first. The difference in the result has nothing whatsoever to do
with individual moral culpability of the respective defendants but hinges
rather on the wholly unrelated factor of the strength of the evidence in
the State's case as to guilt. In this hypothetical, insufficiency of proof of
mitigation was clearly not the consideration guiding the prosecutor's
discretion ....
13
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 88411-1)
CP at 622. This hypothetical unrealistically assumes that there are two identical
crimes and two identical defendants and thereby forecloses the possibility of an
individualized assessment by asking us to assume everything is equal except for the
strength of the evidence at hand. Thus, the hypothetical does not illustrate a realistic
equal protection violation but demonstrates exactly why we require individualized
determinations from our prosecuting attorneys. In reality, prosecutors must make
individual assessments by looking at the crime, the mitigation packet, the strength of
evidence, the desires of surviving family members, and many other factors
governing the ultimate decision to seek capital punishment. Only by
engaging in such a multifaceted, individualized consideration do prosecuting
attorneys comply with the equal protection clause.
CONCLUSION
The King County prosecuting attorney followed the statutory requirements
when he considered whether mitigating circumstances merited leniency and when
he determined that they did not. The fact that he also considered the strength of the
case is inconsequential. Indeed, holistic assessments that take into account various
mitigating circumstances, the facts of the case, and the strength of evidence are just
the type of individualized determinations we require of our prosecutors. Without a
flexible weighing of various factors, prosecutors likely would make standardless
decisions that violate equal protection principles. For these reasons, we reverse the
trial court and remand this matter with instructions to reinstate the notices of special
sentencing proceeding so that the capital prosecutions against McEnroe and
Anderson may finally proceed to trial.
14
No. 88410-2 (consolidated with No. 8841'1-1)
WE CONCUR
/
_~:f-w MM.9A" . _. ·