### FILED **MARCH 15,**  **2018 In**  **the Office**  **of the**  **Clerk of**  **Court WA**  **State Court**  **of Appeals,**  **Division Ill** 

**IN THE**  **COURT OF**  **APPEALS OF**  **THE STATE**  **OF WASHINGTON** 

**DIVISION THREE**  **STATE OF**  **WASHINGTON,**

**Respondent,**
**V. RAYMOND**  **RICHARD RAAB,** 

**Appellant. )** 

**) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **No. 34705-2-III** 

**UNPUBLISHED OPINION** 

**KORSMO, J.** 

**- Raymond**  **Raab challenges**  **his convictions**  **for two**  **counts of**  **intimidating a**  **public servant and**  **two counts**  **of obstructing**  **a law**  **enforcement officer,**  **primarily arguing**  **that the** **jury instructions**  **commented on**  **the evidence.**  **We disagree**  **and affirm.**  **FACTS Mr.**  **Raab, age**  **74 at** **the time**  **of this**  **incident, lives**  **on property**  **he owns**  **in rural**  **Okanogan County**  **northeast of** **Tonasket. On**  **October 22,**  **2015, firefighters**  **spotted a**  **small unattended**  **fire in** **a rural**  **area during**  **a bum**  **ban. Two**  **two-man firefighting**  **crews arrived**  **at the**  **scene to**  **put out** **the fire.**  **They were**  **met by**  **Mr. Raab,**  **apparently intoxicated,**  **who opposed**  **their efforts**  **to fight** **the fire.** **No. 34705-2-111** 

**State v.**  **Raab Engine**  **leaders Enrique**  **Ortega and**  **Cody Epps**  **attempted to**  **negotiate with**  **Mr. Raab,**  **telling him** **they would**  **not issue**  **a citation**  **ifhe only**  **let them**  **put out**  **the fire.**  **The leaders**  **were accompanied**  **by crew**  **members Carlos**  **Moreno and**  **Mick Fulmer.**  **Mr. Raab**  **threatened to**  **get a**  **rifle and**  **shoot the**  **crews. The**  **firefighters left**  **the property**  **and called**  **for assistance**  **from the**  **Okanagan County**  **Sheriff. By**  **the time**  **a deputy**  **sheriff had**  **arrived, Mr.**  **Raab had**  **put out**  **the fire**  **with a**  **garden hose.**  **Mr. Raab**  **was arrested**  **and eventually**  **charged with**  **four counts**  **of intimidating**  **a public**  **servant and**  **four counts**  **of obstructing**  **a law**  **enforcement officer.**  **Each firefighter**  **was identified**  **as the**  **victim of** **one count**  **for each**  **offense. The**  **matter proceeded**  **to jury**  **trial. The**  **court dismissed**  **the obstruction**  **charges involving**  **the two**  **crew members**  **at the**  **conclusion of**  **the State's**  **case. For**  **each of**  **the six**  **remaining charges,**  **the first**  **element of** **the "to**  **convict" instruction**  **included a**  **parenthetical identifying**  **the firefighter**  **involved in**  **that charge.**  **In each**  **instance, the**  **first element**  **of the**  **intimidating charge**  **states (in**  **part): "attempted**  **to influence**  **a public**  **servant's opinion,**  **decision or**  **other official**  **action as**  **a public**  **servant ([**  **name of** **specific victim])."**  **Clerk's Papers**  **(CP) at**  **25-28. Similarly,**  **the first**  **element of**  **the obstructing**  **a law**  **enforcement officer**  **charges stated**  **that the**  **State needed**  **to prove**  **the defendant**  **"willfully hindered,**  **delayed, or**  **obstructed a**  **law enforcement**  **officer ([name**  **of firefighter])**  **in the**  **discharge of** **the law**  **enforcement officer's**  **official powers**  **or duties."**  **CP at**  **30-31.** 

### 2**No. 34705-2-III** 

**State v.**  **Raab**
**Mr. Raab**  **denied threating**  **to shoot**  **the firefighters.**  **The defense**  **argued the**  **case to**  **the jury**  **on the**  **theory that**  **his actions**  **did not**  **amount to intimidation**  **because he**  **never sought** **to retrieve** **his gun.**  **He also**  **argued there**  **was no**  **obstruction because**  **his fire**  **was lawfully**  **set and**  **that the**  **crew's fire-fighting**  **obligations did**  **not extend**  **to his**  **fire. The**  **jury acquitted**  **on the**  **intimidation charges**  **involving the**  **two crew**  **members, but**  **convicted on**  **all four**  **charges relating** **to the**  **two crew**  **leaders. The**  **court discussed with**  **Mr. Raab**  **at sentencing**  **his ability**  **to pay**  **legal financial**  **obligations (LFOs).**  **Mr. Raab's**  **sole income**  **was his**  **social security**  **retirement, but**  **he owned**  **110 acres**  **of land**  **valued at**  **$60,000. When**  **asked ifhe**  **could pay**  **a minimum**  **of $50** **per month, he**  **agreed that**  **he could.**  **The court**  **imposed LFOs**  **of $1260.50;**  **$800.00 of** **that figure**  **consisted of**  **mandatory assessments.**  **Mr. Raab**  **timely appealed**  **to this**  **court. A**  **panel considered**  **the matter**  **without argument.**  **ANALYSIS This**  **appeal argues**  **that the**  **court commented**  **on the**  **evidence in**  **each of**  **the six**  **elements instructions by**  **including the**  **names of** **each firefighter**  **in parentheses.**  **Mr. Raab**  **also argues**  **that the**  **court erred**  **in finding**  **he was**  **able to**  **pay his**  **LFOs and**  **requests that** 
**we waive**  **appellate costs.**  **We address**  **first the**  **instructional issue, followed**  **by joint**  **consideration of** **the financial matters.** 

**3 No.**  **34705-2-III**

**State v.**  **Raab**
**Instructions Mr.**  **Raab argues**  **that the** **parenthetical reference**  **to each**  **firefighter's name**  **constituted a** **judicial comment**  **on the**  **evidence. We**  **disagree, but**  **further note**  **that any** 
**error also**  **would be**  **harmless under**  **these facts.**  **"Judges shall**  **not charge** **juries with**  **respect to**  **matters of** **fact, nor**  **comment thereon,**  **but shall**  **declare the**  **law." WASH.** **CONST. art.**  **IV, §**  **16. This**  **provision "prohibits**  **a judge**  **from conveying**  **to the** **jury his**  **or her**  **personal attitudes**  **toward the**  **merits ofthe case."**  **State v.**  **Becker, 132**  **Wn.2d 54,** **64, 935**  **P.2d 1321**  **(1997). The**  **purpose of** **this provision**  **"is to**  **prevent the** **jury from**  **being unduly**  **influenced by**  **the court's**  **opinion regarding**  **the credibility,** **weight, or**  **sufficiency of**  **the evidence."**  **State v.**  **Sivins, 138**  **Wn. App.**  **52, 58,** **155 P.3d**  **982 (2007)**  **(citing State**  **v. Eisner,**  **95 Wn.2d**  **458, 462,** **626 P.2d**  **10 (1981)).**  **"A statement**  **by the**  **court constitutes**  **a comment**  **on the**  **evidence if** 

**the court's attitude toward**  **the merits of**  **the case**  **or the**  **court's evaluation**  **relative to**  **the disputed**  **issue is**  **inferable from** **the statement."**  **State v.**  **Lane, 125**  **Wn.2d 825,** **838, 889**  **P.2d 929**  **(1995). Thus,** **a jury**  **instruction which**  **removes a**  **factual matter**  **from the** **jury constitutes**  **a comment**  **on the**  **evidence in** **violation of**  **this section.**  **Becker, 132**  **Wn.2d at**  **64-65. In**  **determining whether**  **a statement**  **by the**  **court amounts**  **to a**  **comment on**  **the evidence,** **a reviewing**  **court looks**  **to the**  **facts and**  **circumstances of**  **the**
**case. State**  **v. Jacobsen,**  **78 Wn.2d**  **491, 495,**  **477 P.2d**  **1 (1970).** 

**4 No.**  **34705-2-III**

**State v.**  **Raab**
**Mr. Raab**  **bases his**  **argument primarily**  **on State**  **v. Jackman,**  **156 Wn.2d**  **736, 132**  **P .3d**  **136 (2006).**  **There the**  **defendant was**  **charged with**  **three counts of** **sexual exploitation** **of a**  **minor involving**  **three different**  **victims. Id.**  **at 7** **40- 7** **41. The**  **second element**  **for each**  **count (with**  **different initials**  **and dates**  **of birth**  **for each**  **count), required**  **the State**  **to establish**  **"that B.L.E.,**  **DOB 04/21/1** **985, was**  **a minor."**  **Id. at**  **n.3. The**  **court unanimously**  **agreed that**  **instructing the** **jury on**  **the victim's**  **birthdate was**  **a comment**  **on the**  **evidence since**  **the youth**  **of the**  **victim was**  **one of** **the elements**  **the State**  **needed to**  **prove in**  **order to**  **establish the**  **case. Id.**  **at 744.**  **Presenting the**  **birthdates to**  **the jury**  **as a**  **statement of** **fact conveyed**  **the impression**  **that the** **judge believed**  **the dates**  **had been**  **proven. Id.**  **A similar**  **problem was**  **presented in**  **Becker. There,**  **a special**  **verdict form**  **asked the** **jury if** **the crime**  **had been**  **committed within**  **1,000 feet**  **of a**  **school, "to-wit:**  **Youth Employment**  **Education Program**  **School." 132**  **Wn.2d at**  **64. The** **parties had**  **contested at**  **trial whether**  **the Youth**  **Employment Education Program constituted a**  **school or**  **not. Id.**  **at 63.**  **Because the**  **form stated**  **that the**  **program was**  **a school,**  **the special**  **verdict constituted**  **a comment**  **on the**  **evidence. Id.**  **at 65.**  **Mr. Raab**  **equates the**  **parentheticals used**  **in his**  **case with**  **the jury**  **instructions used in** **Jackman and**  **Becker. For**  **two reasons,**  **his equation**  **fails. First,**  **in both**  **of the**  **earlier**

**5 No.**  **34705-2-III**

**State v.**  **Raab decisions,**  **the plain**  **language of** **the elements**  **instructions stated**  **as fact**  **one of** **the elements the**  **State needed**  **to prove.**  **Here, the**  **parenthetical notations**  **of the**  **names of** **the firefighter**  **involved in**  **each count**  **did not**  **address an**  **element of** **the crime.**  **The State**  **was under**  **no obligation**  **to prove**  **the name**  **of each**  **public servant it**  **contended was**  **intimidated or**  **obstructed by**  **Mr. Raab,**  **so the**  **inclusion of** **the name**  **could not**  **logically have**  **constituted a**  **comment on**  **an element**  **of the**  **offense. 1**  **The names**  **in the**  **parentheticals were**  **a modifying phrase;**  **they were**  **not elements**  **of the**  **offense. There**  **is a**  **second reason,**  **however, that**  **Mr. Raab's**  **argument is**  **fundamentally flawed.**  **He wrongly**  **views the**  **parenthetical name**  **reference as**  **somehow proving** **the status**  **of public**  **servant. For**  **instance, in**  **the intimidation**  **of a**  **public servant context, Mr.**  **Raab treats**  **the public**  **servant element**  **as if** **it was**  **proven by**  **the mere**  **identification of** **a firefighter's**  **name. It**  **was not.**  **The parenthetical**  **refers to**  **th� phrase**  **it is**  **modifying, not**  **the other** **way around.**  **If for**  **example, the**  **instruction had**  **read: "Enrique Ortega,**  **a public**  **servant," Mr.**  **Raab would**  **have an**  **argument that**  **it constituted**  **a comment**  **on the**  **evidence by**  **indicating that**  **Mr. Ortega**  **was a** **public servant.**  **Here, that**  **was not**  **the case.**  **Even if**  **the inclusion** **of the**  **name in**  **the parenthetical amounted** **to a** **judicial comment,**  **it would**  **be**

**1 We**  **also question,**  **but do**  **not decide,** **whether the**  **inclusion of** **the name**  **in a**  **parenthetical notation**  **was otherwise**  **the equivalent**  **of a**  **"to wit"**  **designation such**  **as that**  **used in**  **Becker. 6** **No. 34705-2-III** 

**State v.**  **Raab only**  **a comment**  **about what**  **the firefighter's**  **name actually**  **was. It** **would not**  **prove the**  **specific named**  **firefighter was**  **a public**  **servant-the fact**  **that the**  **State needed**  **to prove.** **2 For**  **both reasons,** 

**there was**  **no error.**  **But, even**  **if there**  **had been**  **an error,** **it was**  **harmless. An**  **improper judicial comment is**  **presumed to**  **be prejudicial.**  **State v.**  **Levy, 156**  **Wn.2d 709,** **723-725, 132**  **P.3d 1076**  **(2006); State**  **v. Bogner,**  **62 Wn.2d**  **247, 382**  **P.2d 254**  **(1963). However,** **such an**  **error is**  **harmless where**  **the record**  **contains overwhelming**  **untainted evidence**  **to support**  **the conviction.**  **Lane, 125**  **Wn.2d at**  **839-840; Sivins,**  **138 Wn.**  **App. at**  **60-61. Under**  **this standard,**  **the appellate**  **court looks**  **to the**  **untainted evidence** **to determine**  **if it**  **is so**  **overwhelming that**  **it necessarily**  **leads to**  **a finding**  **of guilt.**  **State v.**  **Guloy, 104**  **Wn.2d 412,**  **426, 705**  **P.2d 1182 (1985).**  **That standard**  **is satisfied**  **here. The**  **names of** **the individual**  **firefighters were**  **not a**  **contested issue**  **in the**  **case. More**  **critically, the**  **fact that**  **the firefighters**  **were public**  **servants likewise**  **was not**  **in issue,** **and the**  **fact that**  **firefighters were**  **law enforcement**  **officers was**  **a correct**  **statement of** **law. As**  **noted earlier,** **Mr. Raab**  **denied making**  **the threat** **that the**  **firefighters claimed**  **he made**  **and also**  **asserted that**  **his failure**  **to seek**  **out**

**2 Mr.**  **Raab's argument**  **is even**  **weaker in**  **the context**  **of the**  **obstructing a**  **law enforcement**  **officer charge.**  **There, the** **jury was**  **told by**  **instruction 19** **that firefighters**  **were law**  **enforcement officers.**  **CP at**  **38. Thus,** **even if** **the name**  **of the**  **firefighter was**  **equivalent to**  **identifying him**  **as a**  **law enforcement**  **officer, it**  **constituted a**  **correct statement**  **of law**  **instead of** **a comment**  **on the**  **facts of** **the case.**  **7 No.**  **34705-2-111**



### State**v. Raab** 
**his weapon**  **meant he**  **had not**  **threatened them:**  **The fact**  **that firefighters**  **were public**  **servants and/or**  **law enforcement**  **officers simply**  **was not**  **at issue**  **in this**  **case. If** **the court**  **commented on** **the evidence**  **by noting**  **the identity**  **of the**  **firefighters, the**  **error was**  **harmless in**  **light of** **the uncontested**  **nature of** **the elements,**  **which were**  **amply supported**  **in fact.**  **Mr. Raab**  **has not**  **established the**  **existence of** **prejudicial error.**  **The convictions** 
**are affirmed.**  

### Cost**Issues Lastly,**  **Mr. Raab**  **argues that**  **the trial**  **court erred**  **in imposing discretionary LFOs**  **and that**  **this court**  **should waive**  **costs on**  **appeal. 3**  **We defer**  **the appellate**  **cost issue**  **to our**  **commissioner in**  **the event**  **that the**  **State claims costs.**  **RAP 14.2. Therefore,**  **we briefly**  **tum to**  **the LFO**  **issue. The**  **trial court**  **assessed $460.50**  **worth of** **discretionary LFOs. Mr.**  **Raab agreed**  **with the**  **trial judge**  **that he**  **was able**  **to pay**  **$50 per**  **month. In**  **light of** **that agreement,**  **it is**  **difficult to**  **understand how**  **the trial** **judge may**  **have erred or**  **how Mr. Raab can**  **now say**  **that the**  **court erred**  **in accepting**  **his agreement.**  **On these**  **facts, we**  **see no**  **error.**

**3 Mr.** **Raab also**  **filed a**  **statement of** **additional grounds**  **that raises**  **two contentions.**  **The first**  **involves matters**  **outside the**  **record of** **this case**  **and cannot**  **further be**  **considered. The**  **second involves**  **Mr. Raab's**  **interruption of** **the testimony**  **of Mr.**  **Epps and**  **somehow equates**  **his outburst**  **with suppression**  **of testimony.**  **Since the**  **outburst from**  **counsel table**  **is not**  **evidence, we**  **fail to**  **understand how any**  **evidence was**  **suppressed. The**  **claim is**  **without merit.**  **8 No.**  **34705-2-111**

**State v.**  **Raab Nonetheless,**  **Mr. Raab**  **still has**  **the ability**  **to file**  **a motion**  **for remission**  **of the**  **discretionary costs. RCW**  **10.01.160 (** **4 )** 

**. He**  **can explain**  **any change**  **of circumstances**  **that justifies**  **remitting those**  **costs or**  **otherwise indicate**  **how he**  **erred in**  **a g** **reeing that**  **he could** **pa y**  **the $** **50 per**  **month. The**  **convictions are**  **affirmed. A**  **majority of** **the panel**  **has determined**  **this opinion**  **will not** **be printed**  **in the**  **Washington Appellate Reports,**  **but it**  **will be**  **filed for** **public record**  **pursuant to**  **RCW 2.06.040.** 

**WE CONCUR:** 
**Lawrence-Berrey, A.**  

# .J**�\**

**j**
**Pennell, J.**  **) ""**



### 9