State Of Washington v. Earl Burns ( 2015 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
OIVISION II
2015 FEB 10 AM 8: 57
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASH
TA
DIVISION II BY
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45195 -6 -II
Respondent,
v.
EARL DEMITRUIS BURNS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
SUTTON, J. — Earl Demitruis Burns appeals his jury trial conviction for assault in the second
degree. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his for -cause challenge to one of the jurors
and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument by shifting the burden
to the defense, arguing facts not in evidence, denigrating a witness, and expressing personal
opinion about a witness' s credibility. In a pro se Statement of Additional Grounds' ( SAG), he
argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to use a peremptory challenge
to excuse the juror that the trial court refused to dismiss for cause and that the trial court was
biased. We affirm.
FACTS
I. THE ASSAULT
Burns intermittently lived with Latonia Antoinette Sharpley during their 11 -year dating
relationship. Sharpley and Burns had two daughters together. During the later portion of this
1
RAP 10. 10.
No. 45195 -6 -II
relationship, Burns was also seeing Megan Rose. Burns and Rose had a son together; their child
was five months old in June 2012.
At about 8: 00 AM on the morning of June 29, 2012, Sharpley was texting someone while
in bed with Burns. Suspecting that Sharpley was communicating with another man, Burns grabbed
her phone and shut himself in the bathroom. When he emerged from the bathroom, Burns asked
Sharpley, who was holding Burns' son, if she had been communicating with her former boyfriend.
When she told him she had not been, he told her he would " beat [ her] * ss" if she was lying. 1
Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) at 35. Burns then compared information on Sharpley' s
phone with the contact information in his own phone and discovered that she had been
communicating with her former boyfriend.
Burns then climbed onto the bed, took his son from Sharpley' s arms and put him to one
side, and struck Sharpley several times in the face. After Burns stopped hitting Sharpley, he then
demanded that she go downstairs and put ice on her face. While downstairs, Sharpley climbed out
of a bathroom window and sought
help from a lawn maintenance crew working nearby. A
neighbor called 911. Burns left Sharpley' s house before the police arrived.
Sharpley was transported to the hospital. Sharpley' s eyes were swollen shut, she suffered
a hemorrhage in the back of her right eye, and one of her teeth had been knocked out. She gave a
written statement at the hospital, and the police took photographs of her injuries. A police detective
later contacted Sharpley and interviewed her.
2
No. 45195 -6 -II
II. PROCEDURE
The State charged Burns with assault in the second degree and alleged that this was a
domestic violence incident.2 Burns presented an alibi defense, claiming to have been with Megan
Rose at the time of the assault.
A. Voir Dire of Juror 22
During the voir dire of the prospective jurors, the parties questioned " Juror 22" at length
about his ability to remain fair and impartial in light ofhis personal experiences and his relationship
with law enforcement officers.
1. Law enforcement officers
The State first questioned Juror 22 about his connections to law enforcement. Juror 22
stated that he knew two law enforcement officers, that one of his neighbors was a retired Tacoma
Police Department detective, and that he had occasionally talked to these officers about their cases.
When the State asked Juror 22 if there was anything about his relationships with these officers that
led him to think he could not be fair and impartial in this case, Juror 22 responded, " Well, I' m not
really sure." VRP ( Voir Dire) at 43. The State then told Juror 22 that he was not being asked to
ignore his life experiences but that the trial court and counsel needed to know if he could decide
the case based on the evidence presented without allowing his experiences to impact his decision.
Juror 22 responded that he could decide the case based on the evidence.
2
RCW 9A.36. 021( 1)( a); RCW 10. 99. 020( 5)( b).
3
No. 45195 -6 -II
Defense counsel later asked all of the jurors whether they thought that law enforcement or
medical professionals, " have more built in credibility than civilian witnesses" or the defendant.
VRP ( Voir Dire) at 93. Juror 22 responded:
The way I feel, I have known a lot of officers. Sometimes you can believe
them; sometimes you can' t. Okay. If they have to take down all the facts for the
case, so they have to do research on it to put somebody in jail —and nurses or
doctors, they go by what the wounds are by a person. So the credibility on them is
good.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: More so than my client or any other civilian
witness?
JUROR 22: Correct.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that' s by virtue of their job?
JUROR 22: Right.
VRP ( Voir Dire) at 94.
2. Personal experiences
The parties also questioned Juror 22 at length about the effect of his personal experiences
on his ability to remain fair and impartial. First, when the State asked the jurors whether they or
someone close them had personal experience with domestic violence, Juror 22 responded that he
had been robbed and struck in the face when he was working at a convenience store and that his
former wife had been raped in the same store. The perpetrators of these crimes were strangers.
When the State asked Juror 22 if those experiences would make it hard for him to " sit .. .
and listen ... to this case," Juror 22 responded that it would depend on what kind of case this was
and what type of abuse was at issue. VRP ( Voir Dire) at 50. The State told him it was an assault
case, and Juror 22 responded that he had also been physically assaulted. The State asked Juror 22
if he thought this would impact his ability to be fair and impartial if seated on the jury. Juror 22
4
No. 45195 -6 -II
responded, " I could try to be impartial." VRP ( Voir Dire) at 51. Juror 22 also stated that he " would
try" to decide the case based solely on the evidence. VRP ( Voir Dire) at 51.
After the State finished questioning other jurors, defense counsel questioned Juror 22:
DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Juror No. 22, I believe that in response to [ the
State' s] questions about whether or not you thought you could be fair and impartial,
your response was you could try to be impartial; is that right?
JUROR 22: Yes.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: How about fair?
JUROR 22: I could be as fair as I can.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I don' t know what that means.
JUROR 22: Well, I could be fair.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, it' s okay. Tell me what you meant by
that.
JUROR 22: You know, I could be as fair as I could.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Fair as you could given the nature of the
allegations in this case?
JUROR 22: Correct.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So if it wasn' t a [ domestic violence] case or a
domestic violence] allegation or an assault allegation, you believe you could be—
more likely to be fair?
JUROR 22: Correct.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is that fair to say?
JUROR 22: Correct.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And this is where it gets difficult, and this is
for everybody who is sitting here:
I am going to try and ask you to predict the
future as to what your brain is going to do, should you be on this jury. And that' s
really not easy, but it' s the only thing I can do at this point. So having said that, it
is an assault case. There are going to be pictures.
JUROR 22: Okay.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is that going to make it difficult, if not
impossible, for you to be both fair and impartial?
JUROR 22: I have seen some pretty gruesome pictures.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. But you weren' t necessarily sitting on
a jury in that case?
JUROR 22: No.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: In this case, you are going to be sitting on a
jury ultimately making a decision about whether or not the State has proved this
case against Mr. Burns.
JUROR 22: You are making it difficult on me.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I' m not trying to. I' m really not trying to.
5
No. 45195 -6 -II
JUROR 22: When you put in perspective another person and his —for his
freedom or not; it' s really hard for me to say. I am looking at fairness to him. Okay.
Like I say, I have seen some really gruesome pictures of people being hurt.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But you weren' t on their jury?
JUROR 22: No.
DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And I understand that all of us as human
beings try as hard as we can. And, again, the difficulty is both for Mr. Burns,
myself, and [ the State], is trying to figure out —not will you try because we believe
thatyou will try —is can you. -And that' s just a gut thing that only you can probably
answer. You want to think about it, and I will come back to you.
VRP ( Voir Dire) at 62 -64.
Defense counsel then questioned other jurors. One of these jurors discussed how her
experiences involved her relatives but noted that this case was not about people to whom she was
related. The juror was, however, already becoming upset by the situation, and she ultimately
concluded that she could not be fair and would probably " shut down" when the evidence was
presented even though the case did not involve family members. VRP ( Voir Dire) at 65. The
parties agreed to dismiss this juror for cause.
Defense counsel then returned to Juror 22. Juror 22 noted the other juror' s responses and
recognized that the person who had assaulted him ( Juror 22) was a stranger. But he also stated
that he did not know the defendant and was not sure he could say whether he could be impartial
towards the defendant. Defense counsel stated that she would come back to Juror 22 and
proceeded to question the other jurors.
The next day, when defense counsel called on Juror 22 again, Juror 22 stated:
For me to logically say I can give you a positive answer on his outcome, T
cannot. And I knew you were going to get back to me. I thought about this all last
night, and I want to be fair to this gentleman here. And I really can' t be.
VRP ( Voir Dire) at 121.
6
No. 45195 -6 -II
Defense counsel moved to excuse Juror 22 for cause. VRP (Voir Dire) at 121.
The State then asked some follow -up questions:
THE STATE]: Why do you think that you can' t be fair?
JUROR 22: I have —you know, I have been robbed by gunpoint and
knife. I am more afraid of a knife. But when you get hit in the face, I have had
broken ribs, you start thinking, you know, I have seen these people. And if I came
up against them in court, I would have to say, hey, it was an abuse, you know. I
can' t —I don' t know you. You might be a fantastic guy, and I hope the Lord is on
your side. Okay. But I can' t say I am going to be able to really give a good outcome
for him.
THE STATE]: We are not looking for a specific outcome. We are
not looking for a good outcome. What we are asking you to do— obviously, your
experience dealt with strangers. This case will not be about strangers. This will be
about two people that know each other. Obviously, the defendant has had no
interaction with you. You don' t know him.
JUROR 22: Correct. No.
THE STATE]: So you can separate out the fact that you had these
past experiences that have nothing to do with the defendant?
JUROR 22: Correct.
THE STATE]: So the question is: Given that you have had those
experiences, not related to the defendant, if we seat you on this panel, could you
decide the case based on the evidence you heard and the testimony you heard?
JUROR 22: I possibly could, yes.
THE STATE]: That' s what we are asking, if you could do that
knowing it' s not related to your other experiences. Could you put those aside and
decide this case solely based on what you heard through testimony and exhibits in
this courtroom?
JUROR 22: If it' s two different people, yeah.
THE STATE]: It' s people that you don' t know?
JUROR 22: Correct.
THE STATE]: It' s people that have had no interaction with you?
JUROR 22: Correct.
THE STATE]: Certainly people that have not assaulted you or
robbed you, right?
JUROR 22: Correct. You haven' t robbed me, did you?
THE STATE]: So that' s what we are talking about. Can you do that?
JUROR 22: Yeah.
No. 45195 -6 -II
VRP ( Voir Dire) at 121 -23. Following this questioning, the State objected to Burns' request to
excuse Juror 22 for cause.
Defense counsel then asked Juror 22 whether it was his gut reaction that he could not be
on the jury and be fair and impartial. Juror 22 responded:
Well, I want to be impartial. I want to be a juror that can be impartial, okay.
I don' t know if I can separate myself from what happened to me or what he did or
is accused of doing. Sorry.
VRP (Voir Dire) at 123. Defense counsel then asked the juror if he knew he could not be impartial
or just did not think he could be impartial. The juror responded, " I don' t know if I can." VRP
Voir Dire) at 124. Defense counsel renewed the motion to excuse for cause.
3
The trial court denied the motion to excuse Juror 22. Juror 22 served on the jury.
B. Trial Testimony
At trial, the State presented testimony from Sharpley; the officer who responded to the 911
call; the detective who took a statement from Sharpley; and medical personnel. Burns' only
witness was his alibi witness, Rose.
Sharpley testified about the assault as described above. In addition, she testified that at one
point Burns had kicked her in the back and that Burns' cousin was sleeping on the couch in the
living room at the time of the assault; details that were not present in her previous statements to
the police. She also testified that she had not mentioned to the police that she had been holding
Burns' son immediately prior to the assault. Sharpley explained, however, that her testimony was
3 Burns did not exercise all of his peremptory strikes.
8
No. 45195 -6 -II
more detailed than the written statement she gave at the hospital because she had been in pain and
could not see well when she wrote the statement, so she " just [ wrote] the basics." 1 VRP at 46.
Tacoma police officer Wayne J. Beals testified that when he contacted Sharpley on the
morning of the assault, she told him that Burns had become angry with her after looking at her
phone and had punched her four times in the face with a closed fist. She also told Beals that she
had fled the house and that Burns had left the house in his pickup truck. Beals did not, however,
recall Sharpley telling him that Burns had taken her phone into the bathroom to examine it or that
Burns had told her that he was going to beat her. Tacoma police department detective Eric D.
Kothstein interviewed Sharpley a few days after the assault. He testified that she described the
assault consistent with the facts set out above but she did not mention the child being present,
Burns having kicked her, or someone else being in the house during the assault.
Rose testified that Burns was currently her boyfriend and that they were living together.
When defense counsel asked her how long she had been in a relationship with Burns, Rose
4
responded, "
Officially for about ten months. " 2 VRP at 42. Defense counsel then asked Rose
how long she and Burns had been together " unofficially ";5 she responded that they had been
together about three years. She also admitted that she had been seeing Burns while he was still
involved with Sharpley.
Rose testified that at the time of the assault, she was living with Burns' mother and that
Burns was primarily staying with Sharpley, although he would -occasionally stay with her ( Rose).
4 The trial took place in late June 2013.
52 VRP at42.
9
No. 45195 -6 -II
2 VRP at 44. Rose asserted that Burns was staying with Sharpley because it was the only way he
could see his daughters " without any drama." 2 VRP at 44.
When defense counsel asked Rose if she recalled anything about June 29, the date of the
assault, Rose testified that between 11: 00 AM and 1: 00 PM, Sharpley arrived at his mother' s house
and told Rose that he had caught Sharpley cheating on him and that he needed to get away. She
stated that he spent the night with her. Rose testified that they awoke about 8: 00 AM the next
morning. 6 2 VRP at 45.
Defense counsel then asked Rose to clarify whether she was talking about the night of June
28 to June 29, or June 29 to June 30. Rose clarified that she was talking about June 28 to June 29.
When defense counsel asked Rose why she remembered the specific night, Rose responded,
Because based off the information that I know of the situation is that this situation apparently
occurred early morning on the 29th, so it had to have been the 28th to the 29th." 2 VRP at 45. On
cross -examination, Rose admitted that she had determined that Burns was with her on the night of
June 28 to June 29 based on information that Burns had given her around the time he was charged.
She admitted that she had not told the police or the prosecutor' s office about Burns having been
with her at the time of the assault.
Additionally, although Rose initially testified that Burns had told her that his cousin had
dropped Burns off at his mother' s apartment, she later admitted that she had told a defense
investigator that Burns had arrived at her house in his truck. 2 VRP at 46, 57. She later testified,
6
Burns states in his brief that Rose testified that Burns told her that
Sharpley was "` blowing his
phone up with text messages' and calling him about something." Br. of Appellant at 9 ( quoting 2
VRP at 45). But the trial court struck this portion of Rose' s testimony following the State' s hearsay
objection, so we do not consider it.
10
No. 45195 -6 -II
however, that she did not see Burns arrive, so she did not see his truck. 2 VRP at 58. She also
testified that she did not pick up her son until June 29, after she heard that " there may be an issue."
2VRPat46.
C. Closing Argument
1. State' s closing argument
In closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized that, this case came down to whether the
jury believed Sharpley or Rose. The prosecutor reminded the jury that it had been instructed that
it was the sole judge of credibility. But he also told the jury that when evaluating credibility, it
could look to the reasonableness of the testimony, whether the witness was biased, and whether
the witness' s story was " reasonable given the context." 2 VRP at 85.
The prosecutor then asked the jurors to closely examine Sharpley' s and Rose' s testimonies.
He commented on Sharpley' s testimony, her essentially consistent statement to the detective, and
the fact she was visibly upset while testifying about the assault. He then contrasted this with
Rose' s testimony and asserted that Rose' s testimony was internally inconsistent on several points.
For instance, the prosecutor argued that Rose' s claim that Burns and Sharpley were not dating and
that Burns was just staying with Sharpley so he could see his daughters was inconsistent with
Rose' s testimony that he had reacted badly when he found out that Sharpley was involved with
another man. The prosecutor also noted that Rose' s story became " confused" when she testified
about when Burns was with her, that Rose had concluded that Burns was at her house the night
before the incident solely because that was when Burns had told her the assault had occurred, that
it would not have made sense for Rose to leave her child with Sharpley ifthere had been a problem,
11
No. 45195 -6 -II
and that Rose' s testimony about how Burns arrived at his mother' s residence was not consistent.
2VRPat88.
The prosecutor then argued that Rose was biased and had a reason to provide alibi
testimony for Burns:
Now, let' s look at another thing you have to look at is [ bias] or motive.
Does a witness have a bias or motive to give the story they are giving? Well, let' s
talk about Ms. Rose' s relationship with the defendant. What you heard is that the
relationship is, quote, unofficial in her own words for a period of two years. That
includes up to the point ofthis incident. At the time of this incident, they are having
a, quote, unofficial relationship, but Ms. Rose knows about Ms. Sharpley. And at
the time, the defendant is spending time at both houses, back and forth, as you
heard. But their relationship is unofficial.
Incident comes out, the defendant is charged, now it' s official. Now they
have an official relationship, her words, her testimony. The relationship status has
changed because of this case. It has now become official. He is down to a one
woman man.
2 VRP at 91 - 92 ( emphasis added). Burns objected, asserting that this argument did not reflect the
testimony. The trial court overruled the objection. The prosecutor then argued that because Burns
and Rose were now living together, Rose did not want to see him get in trouble and she was biased.
2VRPat92.
The prosecutor further argued:
As you look at the stories that you have been presented and the evidence
that you have been presented, the evidence supports Mrs. Sharpley' s version of
events. And as you are evaluating the evidence, what I want you to ask yourself is
this: How did this happen? This is not an accident. You heard her describe her
pain level as a nine out of ten or an eight out of ten. Ten being the worst she has
1
ever felt in her life. She didn' t hit herself. She didn' t beat herself until her eye
closed shut and then knocked a tooth out. The photos are there. And there is no
other explanation for-
2 VRP at 93 -94. Burns interrupted with an objection, arguing that this argument was shifting the
burden. Burns elaborated, " I have no obligation to prove how this happened. [ The State] has to
12
No. 45195 -6 -II
prove. And I think by going down this line, [ the State] is now somehow shifting the burden of
proof to me." 2 VRP at 94. The trial court sustained the objections and directed the prosecutor to
rephrase his argument.
The prosecutor responded:
Remember the burden is always on [ the State]. But what these [ injuries]
show support Ms. Sharpley' s testimony. These got here because the defendant
punched her numerous times in the face. It' s the only way they get there is from
repeated punches to the face.
The evidence from the CT scan, the damage to her
eye, gets there from the punches. That' s how this happens.
2 VRP at 94. The prosecutor then briefly argued that the jury should convict Burns of assault in
the second degree, rather than the lesser charge of assault in the fourth degree. After the prosecutor
finished, the trial court also reminded the jury that the State had the burden of proving each element
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that Burns had no burden to establish a reasonable
doubt.
2. Defense closing argument
At the start of Burns' closing argument, defense counsel reiterated that the State had the
burden of overcoming the presumption of innocence and that Burns had the right to not testify and
the jury could not infer guilt from the exercise of this right. Defense counsel then argued that the
State had not presented evidence sufficient to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. Defense counsel emphasized that Sharpley was injured and that she was the only one saying
Burns had injured her. Defense counsel then argued that Sharpley' s testimony was not consistent
and that she had testified about many details that she had not mentioned in any previous statement.
Counsel further argued that it was not the defense' s burden to prove anything and that the State
had not proved that Burns assaulted Sharpley.
13
No. 45195 -6 -II
Defense counsel also discussed Rose' s credibility as an alibi witness, mentioning that she
was Burns' girlfriend and that it was now " official." 2 VRP at 101. Defense counsel then
commented that it was not unusual for an alibi witness to have a relationship with the defendant
and that this did not necessarily mean that they were not credible witnesses. Counsel further
argued that the State was asking the jury to speculate that Rose and Burns' relationship became
official" as a result of this case and that there was no evidence supporting that assertion or any
evidence explaining why or how the relationship became " official." 2 VRP at 104.
Defense counsel continued:
Sharpley get injured? By whom? By what? Again, I don' t
How did Ms.
know. And I don' t have to tell you how, I don' t have to give you some theory about
it, I don' t have to posit any evidence saying maybe this is how it happened, maybe
this is how it happened. Again, I know it' s beating a horse here, but I have no
burden. Mr. Burns has no burden. This is not a game of Clue. It is not your job to
try and figure out what exactly happened, and if he didn' t do it, who did.
Your sole responsibility under the law is to decide whether or not the State
has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every element
ofthis crime charged. Meaning, have they proven to you beyond a reasonable
doubt that on June 29th of 2012, Mr. Burns assaulted Ms. Sharpley and that' s how
her injuries were caused.
2 VRP at 104- 05. Defense counsel ended her argument by reiterating that the State had not met
its burden. After defense counsel finished, the trial court once again advised the jury that the State
had the burden of proof.
3. State' s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the prosecutor again argued that the case came down to whether the jury found
Sharpley or Rose more credible. The prosecutor reiterated that the State had the burden to prove
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and argued that it had met its burden because Sharpley' s
statements were consistent over time and she had explained why her trial testimony was more
14
No. 45195 -6 -II
detailed that her prior statements. The prosecutor again mentioned that Rose and Burns'
relationship status changed from unofficial to official soon after Burn' s was charged, that Rose' s
relationship with Burns had " advanced" as a result of the charges, and that this gave Rose reason
to want to protect Burns. 2 VRP at 111. Burns did not object to this argument.
Finally, the prosecutor argued,
The simple fact is that Ms. Sharpley was injured. And this level of [in]jury
is two. It is a substantial bodily harm that she suffered. She didn' t hit
an assault
herself. These injuries did happen. They support her testimony. If you believe
Ms. Sharpley and the consistent version of events she has given you along with the
other physical evidence, then I have met my burden. That is all that is necessary
for you to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 VRP at 116 -17. Burns did not object to this argument.
The jury found Burns guilty as charged. Burns appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. DENIAL OF FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE
Burns first argues that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial before an impartial jury
when it denied the defense motion to strike Juror 22 for cause. Even assuming, but not deciding,
that Burns has properly preserved this argument, it fails.
Because the trial court is able to observe the juror' s demeanor and to evaluate the juror' s
answers, "[ t] he trial judge is best situated to determine a juror' s competency to serve impartially."
7 The State contends that under State v. Clark, 143 Wash. 2d 731, 762, 24 P.3d 1006, cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1000 ( 2001), Burns did not preserve this argument because he failed to use all of his
peremptory strikes. Burns contends that State v. Fire, 145 Wash. 2d 152, 158, 34 P.3d 1218 ( 2001),
establishes that he was not required to exercise all of his peremptory strikes in order to bring this
challenge. Because we choose to resolve this issue on the merits, we do not address the
preservation issue.
15
No. 45195 -6 -II
State v. Rupe, 108 Wash. 2d 734, 749, 743 P.2d 210 ( 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 ( 1988).
Thus, we review for abuse of discretion a trial court' s denial of a for -cause juror challenge. Rupe,
108 Wash. 2d 748.
The trial court should grant a challenge for cause only when the challenged juror exhibits
a probability of actual bias$ such that the juror holds opinions or beliefs that the juror cannot put
aside for the purpose of impartially deciding the merits of the case. State v. Noltie, 116 Wash. 2d
831, 839 -40, 809 P.2d 190. ( 1991). The trial court should not have disqualified a juror merely
because the juror has opinions that may affect the determination of the issues. Instead, "[ t] he
question is whether a juror with preconceived ideas can set them aside." Rupe, 108 Wash. 2d at 749.
Equivocal answers alone do not require that a juror be removed when challenged for cause. Rupe,
108 Wash. 2d at 749.
Juror 22' s comments about whether his relationships with law enforcement would affect
his ability to be fair and impartial was, at times, equivocal. But he also stated that he knew several
law enforcement officers and understood that they were not always credible. And Juror 22 agreed
that he could decide the case based on the evidence despite his relationships with several law
enforcement officers. Given this, we cannot say that trial court abused its discretion in allowing
Juror 22 to remain on the jury despite his relationship with law enforcement officers.
8 Actual bias is " the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action,
or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue
prejudice to the of the party challenging." RCW
impartially and without substantial rights
4. 44. 170( 2). The burden of showing actual bias rests on the party challenging the juror for cause.
State v. Wilson, 141 Wash. App. 597, 606, 171 P.3d 501 ( 2007).
16
No. 45195 -6 -II
Similarly, Juror 22 was often equivocal about whether his prior personal experiences would
affect his ability to be fair and impartial. As noted above, however, equivocal answers alone do
not require that a juror be removed when challenged for cause. Rupe, 108 Wash. 2d at 749. Here,
Juror 22' s final discussion with the State in which he stated that he could " separate out "9 the crimes
that had been committed against him and his family from those involving the defendant and that
he could decide the case based on the evidence presented if the defendant was not the person
involved in the prior acts against him and his family, was sufficient to allow the trial court to
10
conclude that Juror 22 was not actually biased. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied the defense motion to excuse Juror 22 for cause.
II. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Burns next argues that the prosecutor committed prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct
during closing argument by ( 1) shifting the burden to the defense, and ( 2) arguing facts not in
evidence. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
To prevail on his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Burns must establish that the
prosecutor' s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 756, 278
P .3d 653 ( 2012). If Burns can establish that the conduct was improper, we review the conduct for
9 VRP (Voir Dire) at 122.
1°
Burns' reliance on State v. Gonzales, 111 Wn. App. 276, 45 P.3d 205 ( 2002), review denied,
148 Wash. 2d 1012 ( 2003), is not persuasive. The juror in Gonzales expressly stated that she was
unsure that she would be able to respect the presumption of innocence if a police officer testified.
Gonzales, 111 Wn. App.Here, in contrast, Juror 22 never expressly stated that he was
at 279.
unsure he could apply the required presumptions in light of police testimony.
17
No. 45195 -6 -I1
prejudice under one of two different standards. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 760. When a defendant
timely objects to the alleged instances of misconduct, the defendant must show that the
prosecutor' s misconduct had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury' s verdict. Emery, 174
Wash. 2d at 760. When a defendant fails to object to alleged misconduct, the defendant waives the
error unless he can show that the misconduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that no instruction
could cure the prejudice and that the prejudice had a "` substantial likelihood of affecting the jury
verdict. "' Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 761 ( quoting State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn .2d 438, 455, 258 P.3d
43 ( 2011)). We review alleged improper statements in the context of the entire argument, the
issues in the case, and evidence presented at trial. State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d 559, 578, 79 P.3d
432 ( 2003). Burns objected to the first instance of alleged misconduct, but not the second. But
even if Burns had objected to both instances, this argument fails.
B. Burden Shifting
Burns argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he argued in closing that
someone had to have caused Sharpley' s injuries and that there was "` no other explanation for "'
the injuries other than Burns having assaulted her. Br. of Appellant at 24 ( quoting 2 VRP at 94).
He contends that the prosecutor made this argument twice, once in his initial closing argument and
again at the end of his rebuttal argument. Burns objected to the first argument, but not the second.
Even if Burns had objected to both arguments, his argument fails.
11
After the prosecutor argued that there was " no other explanation for " Sharpley' s injuries,
Burns objected. The trial court sustained the objection and told the prosecutor to rephrase his
112 VRP at94.
18
No. 45195 -6 -II
argument. When the prosecutor rephrased his argument, he reiterated that the burden of proof was
on the State. Additionally, at end of the prosecutor' s argument, the trial court reminded the jury
that the State had the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt and that Burns
had no burden to establish a reasonable doubt existed. Furthermore, defense counsel' s argument
repeatedly reminded the jury that the State had the burden of proof and that Burns had no duty to
present evidence. And the jury instructions also instructed the jury that the lawyers' remarks and
arguments were not the law and that the law was contained in the instructions, which said that the
State had the burden of proof and the defendant did not have to prove that a reasonable doubt
existed.
Although the prosecutor' s arguments could have suggested that Burns had failed to present
an alternative explanation for Sharpley' s injuries and, thus, suggested that Burns had some burden
to produce evidence, the trial court' s repeated oral instructions to the jury, both parties' repeated
statements during their closing arguments, and the written instructions clearly instructed the jury
of the proper burden of proof. Because of these repeated admonitions and instructions and given
the brief nature of the prosecutor' s possibly improper closing arguments, Burns has not shown this
potential error had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury' s verdict and his argument fails.
Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 760.
C. Arguing Facts Not in Evidence
Burns further argues that the prosecutor ( 1) misrepresented Rose' s testimony when he
suggested that he had asked Rose about whether she was giving Burns an alibi, and ( 2) suggested
that the reason Rose and Burns' relationship had become ' official ' was to get Rose to testify on
19
No. 45195 -6 -II
Burns' behalf. Br. of Appellant at 29 ( quoting 2 VRP at 92). Burns argues that this argument was
not based on the evidence. We disagree.
Comments that "` encourage [ the jury] to render a verdict on facts not in evidence are
improper. "' State v. Stith, 71 Wn. App. 14, 18, 856 P.2d 415 ( 1993) ( quoting State v. Stover, 67
Wn. App. 228, 231, 834 P.2d 671 ( 1992), review denied, 120 Wash. 2d 1025 ( 1993)). But the
prosecutor has wide latitude in closing arguments to draw reasonable inferences from the facts in
evidence and to express such inferences to the jury. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d at 577. Such is the case
here.
On cross -examination, the prosecutor asked Rose if it was her testimony that Burns was
with her at the time of the crime. Although the prosecutor did not use the word " alibi," his
argument that he had asked Rose if she was providing Burns with an alibi is a reasonable
characterization of what happened during Rose' s cross -examination. Thus, the prosecutor was not
arguing facts not in evidence when he made this statement.
Similarly, the prosecutor' s argument suggesting that the change in Rose and Burns'
relationship gave Rose a reason to provide an alibi was a reasonable inference from the evidence.
The timing of the change in their relationship coincided with the charges against Burns, Rose
testified that she and Burns had talked about the charges, and Rose never contacted law
enforcement or the prosecutor' s office to tell them that Burns had an alibi. It was a reasonable
inference that the change in relationship status, which apparently benefitted Rose, was the reason
she was now providing an alibi. Thus, the prosecutor was not arguing facts not in evidence when
he made this argument.
20
No. 45195 -6 -II
D. Denigrating a Witness
Burns also appears to argue that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he
denigrate[ d] Rose' s version of [the] events, calling it a ` story. "' Br. of Appellant at 28 ( quoting
2 VRP at 85). But the prosecutor referred to both the State' s and Burns' theories of the case as
stor[ ies]," and, taken in context, the prosecutor' s use of the term " story" was not intended to
denigrate Rose' s testimony. See 2 Verbatim Report of Proceedings at 85 ( emphasis added) ( stating
y] ou should look at the reasonableness of [the] statements that people make, you should look at
whether they have a bias in what they are saying, you should look at [ whether] the story they are
giving you is reasonable given the context" when describing generally how to evaluate credibility);
at 86 ( emphasis added) ( referring to Sharpley' s testimony as the " story of events of what
occurred "); and at 93 ( emphasis added) ( stating, " As you look at the stories that you have been
presented and the evidence that you have been presented, the evidence supports Mrs. Sharpley' s
version of events," when discussing Sharpley' s testimony). Accordingly, this argument fails.
E. Personal Opinion
Burns further argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he " staged] his
personal opinion about how he was ` more confused' as [ Rose' s] testimony went on." Br. of
Appellant at 28 ( quoting 2 VRP at 87). Burns appears to argue that this was improper argument
that expressed the prosecutor' s personal opinion about Rose' s credibility. This argument is not
preserved.
After arguing that it was inconsistent for Rose to say Burns was no longer in a relationship
with Sharpley and then claim Burns was upset because Sharpley was communicating with another
21
No. 45195 -6 -II
man, the prosecutor commented, "[ W] e then hear more of her story, Ms. Rose' s story, and I begin
to become more confused." 2 VRP at 87. Burns did not object to this argument.
It is misconduct for a prosecutor to state his or her personal belief as to a witness' s
credibility. State v. Warren, 165 Wash. 2d 17, 30, 195 P.3d 940 ( 2008) ( citing State v. Brett, 126
Wash. 2d 136, 175, 892 P.2d 29 ( 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1121 ( 1996)), cert. denied, 556 U.S.
1192 ( 2009). But Burns did not object to this argument, thus, even assuming but not deciding that
this argument was improper, he has waived this issue unless he can show that the improper
argument was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that no instruction could have cured the prejudice and
that the prejudice would have had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury' s verdict. Emery,
174 Wash. 2d at 761. To the extent the prosecutor' s reference to his becoming more confused is
improper argument reflecting his personal opinion of Rose' s credibility, if Burns had objected, the
trial court could have told the jury to disregard this statement and informed the jury that it (the
jury) was the sole credibility judge. Because this comment could have been cured with a proper
instruction had Burns objected, Burns has waived this issue. Thus, Burns has failed to establish
prosecutorial misconduct.
III. SAG
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In his SAG, Burns argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when she
failed to use a peremptory challenge to avoid seating Juror 22. We disagree.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Burns must show that his counsel' s
representation was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. State v. McNeal, 145 Wash. 2d
352, 362, 37 P.3d 280 ( 2002). Counsel' s performance is deficient only if it falls below an objective
22.
No. 45195 -6 -II
standard of performance. McNeal, 145 Wash. 2d at 362. Prejudice results where there is a reasonable
probability that but for counsel' s deficient performance, the outcome would have differed.
McNeal, 145 Wash. 2d at 362.
Burns does not point to anything suggesting that Juror 22' s presence on the jury prejudiced
him nor does the record reveal any potential prejudice. And because we hold above that the trial
court did not err when it denied the defense motion to excuse Juror 22 for cause, Burns does not
show that his counsel' s failure to use a peremptory strike prevented us from addressing whether
the trial court erred in denying Burns' motion to strike the juror for cause. Accordingly, this
argument fails.
B. Judicial Bias
Finally, Burns appears to argue that the trial court judge was biased. Burns cites to the trial
court' s failure to grant the motion to excuse Juror 22 for cause and two instances where the trial
court overruled objections to the State' s closing argument asserting the State was arguing facts
outside the record. This argument fails.
The appearance of fairness doctrine requires the absence of actual or apparent bias on the
part of the judge or decision -maker. State v. Worl, 91 Wash. App. 88, 96, 955 P.2d 814 (citing State
v. Dagenais, 47 Wash. App. 260, 261, 734 P.2d 539 ( 1987)), review denied, 136 Wash. 2d 1024 ( 1998).
To succeed on this claim, Burns " must present evidence of actual or potential bias." Wori, 91 Wn.
App. at 96. " Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid showing of bias." In re Pers.
Restraint ofDavis, 152 Wash. 2d 647, 692, 101 P.3d 1 ( 2004).
23
No. 45195 -6 -II
We hold above that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Juror 22 to remain
on the jury; thus, this cannot be evidence of bias. And ruling against a defendant on objections
during closing argument is not evidence of bias. Accordingly, this argument fails.
We affirm.
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:
We rswick, P. J.
24