IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) n 

) 1.1 O, 76734-8-1 1—> (no c-) _ —I C 

Respondent, ) c— pi 

) DIVISION ONE c 0 

-r1 411 

v. ) C 

)cn r 1 ,--, 

RONALD ALLEN AHLQUIST II, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION -.— 

) E3 c 1 0 • •—073 Appellant. ) FILED: July 24, 2017 ca 

) c.0 lc-- 

- 

BECKER, J. — Ronald Ahlquist was prosecuted for causing the death of his 

elderly father and taking his money. He appeals his convictions for 

manslaughter, theft, and identity theft. He contends the trial court should have 

instructed the jury that deliberations must include all 12 jurors at all times. 

Because Ahlquist shows no manifest constitutional error, we decline to address 

this issue raised for the first time on appeal. We also decline to remand for entry 

of written findings supporting the court's decision to admit certain statements into 

evidence. The lack of written findings is harmless error. 

According to testimony at trial, police were dispatched to a Brush Prairie 

residence on October 7, 2013, to investigate a death. They found the body of 

Ahlquist's father wrapped in an air mattress in the back of a van. A medical 

examiner determined that Ahlquist's father had died from malnutrition due to 

dementia and neglect. Ahlquist had been his father's sole caretaker. He told 
No. 76734-8-1/2 

police he was not helping his father to eat and he guessed he had not seen his 

father for a couple of weeks before he died. 

Police discovered that Ahlquist had been using a debit card issued in his 

fathers name and associated with an account where his fathers social security 

benefits were deposited. Ahlquist admitted to using the debit card to buy items 

for himself. 

Trial occurred in January 2016. Ahlquist's defense was, generally, that he 

provided the level of care that his father wanted. He claimed that he had 

permission to access his father's social security benefits. 

After deliberating for about four hours, the jury convicted Ahlquist and 

determined by special verdicts that alleged aggravating circumstances were 

present. Ahlquist was sentenced to 110 months of confinement. He appeals the 

judgment and sentence. 

Ahlquist contends that he was deprived of a fair trial and his right to a 

unanimous verdict because the court did not specifically instruct the jury that 

deliberations must include all 12 jurors at all times. Criminal defendants are 

guaranteed the right to a unanimous verdict, reached through deliberations which 

are the common experience of all jurors. WASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 21, 22; State v. 

Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576, 583, 327 P.3d 46 (2014). This right is violated when, for 

example, a court instructs the jury to bring an alternate juror "'up to speed'" on 

deliberations that already occurred and proceed from there. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 

at 582. Such an instruction affirmatively tells the reconstituted jury not to 

deliberate together. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d at 582. Ahlquist contends that the brief 

2 
No. 76734-8-1/3 

period of deliberations indicates a reasonable possibility that some of the 12 

jurors discussed his case without the benefit of every other juror's presence. 

The trial court gave a standard instruction on deliberations: 

As jurors, you have a duty to discuss the case with one 

another and to deliberate in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict. 

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you 

consider the evidence impartially with your fellow jurors. During 

your deliberations, you should not hesitate to re-examine your own 

views and to change your opinion based upon further review of the 

evidence and these instructions. You should not, however, 

surrender your honest belief about the value or significance of 

evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors. Nor 

should you change your mind just for the purpose of reaching a 

verdict. 

See 11 WASHINGTON PFtACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: 

CRIMINAL 1.04 (4th ed. 2016). Ahlquist did not object to this instruction, nor did 

he propose any alternative or additional instruction on jury deliberations. He 

raises the issue of jury unanimity for the first time on appeal. Thus, he is 

required to demonstrate manifest constitutional error. RAP 2.5(a). 

An error is manifest if it caused actual prejudice, that is, if it had practical 

and identifiable consequences at trial. State v. Gordon 172 Wn.2d 671, 676, 

260 P.3d 884 (2011). The question is whether the error is so obvious on the 

record that it warrants appellate review. State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100, 

217 P.3d 756 (2009). "If the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are 

not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not 

manifest." State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). 

Ahlquist claims that the possibility of prejudice here Is "not just theoretical." 

He asserts that the short period of deliberation means the jury may have divided 

3 
No. 76734-8-1/4 

Into groups to deliberate on the different charges, with the understanding that 

each group would then adopt the conclusions reached by the others. He 

suggests one or more jurors likely left to use the bathroom while the remaining 

jurors continued to discuss the case. 

Ahlquist's hypothetical scenarios are based entirely on speculation. He fails 

to show manifest constitutional error, and we decline to address his argument on 

the merits. 

Ahlquist also contends the court erred by failing to enter written findings in 

support of a decision to admit statements he made to police. He does not 

challenge the decision itself. 

Before admitting a defendant's statements into evidence, a trial court must 

conduct a hearing and, after the hearing, enter written findings supporting its 

decision. CrR 3.5(a), (c). The trial court conducted the required hearing on 

January 19, 2016. The court then gave an oral ruling admitting Ahlquist's 

statements from two police interviews. The court did not enter written findings as 

required by CrR 3.5(c). We accept the State's concession that this was error. 

Ahlquist contends the appropriate remedy is remand for entry of written 

findings. A court's failure to enter the findings required by CrR 3.5 is considered 

harmless error if the court's oral comments are sufficient to permit appellate 

review. State v. Cunningham, 116 Wn. App. 219, 226, 65 P.3d 325 (2003). 

Here, the court's oral comments on the record of the CrR 3.5 hearing are 

sufficient. The court explained its rationale as to why admitting the statements 

4 
No. 76734-8-1/5 

would not violate Ahlquist's constitutional rights. We decline to remand for entry 

of written findings. 

Appellate costs will not be imposed against Ahlquist absent a showing of 

change in his indigent status. RAP 14.2. 

Affirmed. 

15e cv_te. . 

WE CONCUR: 

5