State Of Washington v. Steven Daniel Kravetz ( 2015 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
2015 FEB 18
AM 9: 20
E F
GT0N
BY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44923 -4 -II
Respondent,
v.
STEVEN DANIEL KRAVETZ, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, J. — Following a jury trial, Steven Daniel Kravetz was convicted of first degree
assault, second degree assault, and disarming a law enforcement officer. Kravetz appeals, arguing
that the trial court denied him his right to testify. Kravetz, in a statement of additional grounds
SAG), 1 also challenges the validity of the jury' s verdicts, arguing that he was denied his right to
a unanimous verdict and that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts. Kravetz' s arguments are
without merit. We affirm.
FACTS
Following an assault at the Grays Harbor courthouse,2 the State charged Kravetz with the
following crimes: Count I— second degree attempted murder, count II —first degree assault of
1 RAP 10. 10.
2
The venue for this trial was changed from Grays Harbor County to Lewis County.
No. 44923 -4 -II
Deputy Polly Davin, count III —disarming a law enforcement officer, and count IV —first degree
assault of Judge David Edwards.
Kravetz' s case proceeded to a jury trial on March 26, 2013. On April 1, after both parties
presented their cases, the trial court dismissed the jurors for the day.
The next morning, defense counsel informed the court that Kravetz wished to address the
court. The following exchange took place:
THE COURT: Mr. Kravetz, as I understand it, you wish to address the Court
directly yourself. Again, as I told you at the outset, you have the right to remain
silent. You are not required to say anything. As I told you at the outset [ you] had
the right to take the stand and testify, and it was my understanding from yesterday
from the action taken by [ defense counsel] in calling his expert witness, then,
subsequently calling your mother, then, resting that the decision was made that you
were not going to testify. If you want to be heard on that, this is your opportunity.
Bear in mind, you are not required to say anything, and anything you do say is being
taken down by the court reporter and may end up being used against you.
THE DEFENDANT: Last time I had spoken with [ defense counsel] in the
jail, he told me that regarding the presentation of the defense yesterday that he
would call his witnesses and then the prosecution would call the rebuttal witnesses,
but he never told me that the defense was required to rest, before the rebuttal
witnesses, and I thought that I might have a chance to testify after the rebuttal
witnesses, because he never informed me of that, so that' s just — basically, that' s
maybe sort of affected my decision possibly to not testify, and so I'm just raising
that he should have been more informative about me and that' s all.
THE COURT: Well, are you telling me that you wanted to take the stand
and testify in your own defense and that somehow you misunderstood [ defense
counsel' s] advice and as a result of that chose not to or are you just telling me you
wanted an opportunity to rebut the State' s rebuttal witnesses?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don' t want to do that, but Ijust wanted to raise
the fact that he did not inform me properly, so that I didn' t have a chance to think
about this as much as I could have.
2
No. 44923 -4 -II
THE COURT: Mr. Kravetz, is there anything else you would like to say on
Again, you are not required to say anything. Anything you say is being
this topic?
taken down by the reporter and may be used against you.
THE DEFENDANT: No, that' s all right.
THE COURT: From your statements, it is my understanding that you are
not telling me that you, the defendant, in fact did want to testify on your own behalf
merely that you apparently did not understand or so you say today the procedure
that the Court follows with respect to a trial ... .
It' s on the record. You have made your record for it, but I think that what
happened here was trial strategy, and I understand the strategy. I think all the
attorneys in the courtroom understand the strategy, and I' m going to leave it at that,
unless you have something else that you want to say on the topic.
THE DEFENDANT: No.
Verbatim Transcript Proceedings ( VTP) ( April 2, 2013) at 566 -68, 571 -73 ( emphasis added).
After the above exchange, the parties proceeded to closing arguments.
The trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree assault
as to counts II and IV. On count II, the jury received a verdict form A for first degree assault and
a verdict form B for second degree assault. The trial court instructed the jury to not complete
verdict form B if they found Kravetz guilty of first degree assault on verdict form A. On count
IV, the jury received a verdict form A for first degree assault and a verdict form B for second
degree assault. The trial court again instructed the jury to not complete verdict form B if they
found Kravetz guilty of first degree assault on verdict form A.
3
No. 44923 -4 -II
The jury returned the following verdicts:
Count I: Second degree attempted murder —not guilty;
Count II: First degree Deputy Polly Davin, Form A—guilty;
assault of
Count II: Second degree assault of Deputy Davin, Form B —not guilty;
Count III: Disarming a law enforcement officer —guilty;
Count IV: First degree assault of Judge David Edwards —not guilty
Count IV: Second degree assault of Judge Edwards —guilty
Clerk' s Papers'( CP) at 304 -09. In regards to the jury completing verdict form B for count II, the
trial court said that the response was " a redundant verdict" because the jury should not have
completed verdict form B ( count II-assault in the second degree) when it found Kravetz guilty of
first degree assault. VTP (April 3, 2013) at 679, 684.
The trial court polled the jury at Kravetz' s request. Each juror, except for juror 12, reported
that the verdicts reflected their verdicts and the verdicts of the jury. Juror 12 reported that "[ tjhey
were not my verdicts. They were the verdicts of the jury." VTP ( April 3, 2013) at 683. Kravetz
did not object to the trial court' s polling method.
The trial court determined that the verdicts were not unanimous as required, and directed
the jury to continue deliberations. On the record, the trial court determined (after discussion from
the parties) that the first set of verdicts were invalid because they were not unanimous, that the
jury did not follow the trial court' s instructions regarding filling out the verdict forms, and that the
trial court would give the jury a clean set of verdict forms. Kravetz did not object to the trial
court' s ruling to send the jury to continue deliberations.
After continued deliberations, the jury returned the following verdicts:
Count I: Second degree attempted murder —not guilty
Count II: First degree Deputy Polly Davin, Form A—guilty
assault of
Count II: Second degree assault of Deputy Davin, Form B— "redundant"
Count III: Disarming a law enforcement officer —guilty
4
No. 44923 -4 -II
Count IV: First degree assault of Judge David Edwards —not guilty
Count IV: Second degree assault of Judge Edwards —guilty
CP at 314 -19. The trial court again polled the jury at Kravetz' s request, which revealed that the
verdicts were unanimous. Kravetz did not object to the trial court' s polling method. Kravetz
appeals.
ANALYSIS
A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TESTIFY
Kravetz argues that the trial court denied him his constitutional right to testify when it did
not allow him to reopen his case -in -chief after he told the trial court that he did not want to testify,
but that he wanted to share his thought that his counsel should have been more informative.3 Br
of Appellant at 14. His argument fails.
The defendant has a fundamental right to testify. State v. Robinson, 138 Wash. 2d 753, 758,
982 P.2d 590 ( 1999). We review a trial court' s decision whether to reopen a case -in -chief to allow
a defendant to testify for manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Barnett, 104 Wash. App. 191, 199,
16 P.3d 74 ( 2001). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on untenable
grounds or untenable reasons. Barnett, 104 Wash. App. at 199.
Here, Kravetz did not ask to testify or to reopen his case -in- chief. A.defendant is not denied
his right to testify when he did not assert that right and when he declined to testify when given the
opportunity. See Barnett, 104 Wash. App. at 198 -99 ( holding the trial court did not abuse its
discretion to not reopen the case -in -chief to allow the defendant to testify where the defendant
stated that he changed his mind about testifying the day after the defense rested its case).
3 Kravetz does not assert that he asked to or wanted to testify prior to April 2, 2013.
5
No. 44923 -4 -II
Moreover, the, trial court cannot abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen a defendant' s case -in-
chief when the defendant did not ask to reopen his case -in- chief. Accordingly, Kravetz' s claim
that the trial court denied him his right to testify by not reopening his case -in -chief lacks merit.
B. SAG —JuRY VERDICTS
1. Unanimous Jury Verdicts and Jury Polling
Kravetz argues that the trial court denied him his right to a unanimous jury verdict by
improperly polling the jury and improperly directing the jury to continue deliberations. SAG at 1,
9. We disagree.
First, Kravetz did not object to the trial court' s poll. Therefore, he is precluded from
assigning error to the form of the jury poll. RAP 2. 5( a); State v. Strine, 176 Wash. 2d 742, 749, 293
P.3d 1177 ( 2013) ( holding that the court would not review the defendant' s assignment of error
related to the jury poll when the defendant did not object at trial).
Second, Kravetz argues that the trial court improperly directed the jury to continue
deliberations because the jury returned an acquittal on count II for second degree assault of Deputy
Davin. Kravetz' s assertion that the jury acquitted him of count II is unequivocally incorrect. Here,
the jury poll showed that the first set of verdicts were not unanimous. A nonunanimous verdict is
not an acquittal. In re Pers. Restraint of Candelario, 129 Wash. App. 1, 7, 118 P.3d 349 ( 2005).
the jury did demonstrate that Kravetz was acquitted —it demonstrated that
Accordingly, poll not
the jury had not reached a unanimous verdict. See State v. Noyes, 69 Wash. 2d 441, 446; 418 P.2d
471 ( 1966) ( holding when a hung jury stands 11 to 1 for acquittal, defendant is not permitted to
waive a unanimous verdict and accept the vote of 11 jurors as a valid verdict for acquittal). Thus,
Kravetz' s arguments regarding the improper polling of the jury fails.
No. 44923 -4 -II
2. Inconsistent verdicts
Kravetz argues that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts based on the first set of verdict
forms. Specifically, he argues that it was inconsistent for the jury to find him guilty for first degree
assault as to count II, but not guilty of the lesser included crime of second degree assault.
Kravetz' s argument fails because the trial court rejected the first set of verdict forms and
determined that they were not valid. The trial court may properly disregard the jury' s completion
of a special verdict form when the jury found the defendant guilty and was instructed to complete
the form only if they found the defendant not guilty. State v. Eggleston, 164 Wash. 2d 61, 73, 187
P.3d 233, cent. denied, 555 U.S. 1075 ( 2008).
Also, the second set of verdict forms, which the trial court accepted because they were
unanimous and valid, did not find him not guilty on form B. Thus, the alleged inconsistency that
Kravetz relies on does not exist in the accepted jury verdicts.
We affirm Kravetz' s conviction.
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.
We concur:
7