IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

JEREMY DOUGLAS PAWLEY,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 35439-3-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, A.C.J. — Jeremy Pawley appeals his conviction for felony harassment

of a criminal justice participant. We affirm.

FACTS

Mr. Pawley’s criminal charges arose from an incident at the Geiger Corrections

Center (Geiger) in Spokane, where he was detained as an inmate. Corrections Officer 

Kevin White was conducting an inspection when Mr. Pawley became verbally disruptive. 

After Mr. Pawley admitted making disruptive comments, Officer White ordered that Mr. 

Pawley turn around to be handcuffed. Mr. Pawley complied.

FILED

OCTOBER 16, 2018

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

2

Officer White walked Mr. Pawley to the stairwell. As Officer White opened the 

stairwell door, Mr. Pawley kicked it “hard enough to slam the door fully open against the 

stairwell wall, and back into [Officer White] and Mr. Pawley.” 1 Report of Proceedings 

(RP) (May 31, 2017) at 116. In response, Officer White pushed Mr. Pawley up against 

the wall to control him, called for backup, and ordered Mr. Pawley to comply with his 

directives. Mr. Pawley pushed his body back against Officer White. Officer White, 

noting he was near the stairs’ edge, forced Mr. Pawley to the ground and got on top of 

him.

Officer White and Mr. Pawley engaged in a struggle. Other guards arrived and 

aided Officer White. As the struggle progressed, Mr. Pawley became increasingly 

aggressive. Mr. Pawley remained in handcuffs, face down on the floor, and under the 

physical control of the guards throughout the altercation. Several guards testified that 

they either personally inflicted or saw others inflict pain on Mr. Pawley to force him to 

comply. Mr. Pawley was swearing and yelling throughout the struggle. He made several 

threatening statements to the guards generally. However, his most serious threats were 

directed at Officer White. Mr. Pawley threatened to kill Officer White several times. 

Officer White also sustained several cuts on his forearm during the struggle with Mr. 

Pawley, though the record does not reveal who caused them.
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

3

After the struggle, Officer White told the investigating sheriff’s deputy that he was 

“extremely concerned” about Mr. Pawley’s threats, “given the type of threats that were 

made and how those threats were made . . . . [H]e perceived that they were legitimate 

threats, and so he was concerned about his well-being as well as that of his family for 

future events that might occur.” 2 RP (June 1, 2017) at 356-57 (testimony of sheriff’s 

deputy). Mr. Pawley was charged by information with one count of custodial assault and 

one count of felony harassment.

At trial, Officer White testified about the struggle and the threats Mr. Pawley made 

against him. He stated that he had only been threatened twice previously in 10 years of 

work as a corrections officer. He also testified that he took the threats seriously because 

of their nature, the turnover rate at Geiger, and the fact that the threats continued after he 

had removed himself from Mr. Pawley’s presence.

Several guards involved in the incident testified that the threats made them 

concerned for Officer White’s safety.1

 Two guards testified that Mr. Pawley was more 

 1 Officer Joseph Cobb testified that he took the threats Mr. Pawley made toward

Officer White seriously because of “[t]he manner in what [sic] he was saying it. He said 

it.” 1 RP (May 31, 2017) at 173. Officer Ian Scholz testified that he personally “would 

be concerned if somebody was making those threats against my life or saying that he’d

beat me to a bloody pulp, that would raise quite a bit of concern for me.” Id. at 191. 

Officer Anthony Dunnavant testified that he was not concerned for his own safety, but 

was concerned for Officer White’s safety.
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

4

aggressive than any other inmate they had observed.

Mr. Pawley testified at trial. He denied threatening to kill Officer White. He also 

explained that his demeanor and actions were a result of the pain compliance techniques 

the guards used.

The jury acquitted Mr. Pawley of the custodial assault charge, but convicted him of 

felony harassment. The court sentenced Mr. Pawley to 55.5 months of confinement. Mr.

Pawley appeals.

ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of the evidence

Due process mandates that the State prove each element of the crime charged

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Colquitt, 133 Wn. App. 789, 796, 137 P.3d 892 

(2006). “Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, ‘after viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime [are met] beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Boyle, 

183 Wn. App. 1, 6, 335 P.3d 954 (2014) (quoting State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 

P.2d 628 (1980)). “A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and 

all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

5

201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). When reviewing the evidence, the court makes all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the State and against the defense. Id.

“Reasonable fear” requirement

To secure a conviction for felony harassment of a criminal justice participant, the 

State must prove, inter alia, that Mr. Pawley’s words or conduct placed Officer White in 

“reasonable fear” that Mr. Pawley’s threat would be carried out. RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b); 

State v. C.G., 150 Wn.2d 604, 607-08, 80 P.3d 594 (2003). The reasonable fear standard 

requires showing both that the victim experienced actual fear and that the fear 

experienced was reasonable. State v. Trey M., 186 Wn.2d 884, 905-06, 383 P.3d 474 

(2016). Mr. Pawley contends the evidence supports neither the inference that Officer 

White was in fear, nor the inference that the officer’s fear was reasonable. Both 

contentions fail.

The evidence readily supports the jury’s determination that Mr. Pawley’s threats to 

kill Officer White placed the officer in fear that the threats would be carried out. Officer 

White testified that he took Mr. Pawley’s threat to kill seriously. This alone is sufficient 

to meet the fear requirement. State v. Hecht, 179 Wn. App. 497, 501-02, 511, 319 P.3d 

836 (2014). Mr. Pawley’s argument relies on a strict interpretation of the word “fear.” 

However, courts have affirmed harassment convictions in cases where the victim took an 
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

6

explicit threat to kill seriously. See id.; Trey M., 186 Wn.2d at 905; Boyle, 183 Wn. App. 

at 8-9. Moreover, the investigating deputy’s testimony further elaborates on Officer 

White’s belief that the threats were “legitimate” and that Officer White was “extremely 

concerned” about them. 2 RP (June 1, 2017) at 356-57.

Second, the State must show that the victim’s fear was reasonable. Trey M., 

186 Wn.2d at 905-06. The reasonableness of a victim’s fear is determined by applying 

an objective standard to the threat and the context surrounding it. State v. Ragin, 94 Wn. 

App. 407, 411, 972 P.2d 519 (1999). Context can include previous interactions between 

the defendant and the victim, id. at 412, the defendant’s conduct when delivering the 

threat, see Hecht, 179 Wn. App. at 501, 511, and the tone or nature of the threat. Boyle, 

183 Wn. App. at 9; see also State v. Binkin, 79 Wn. App. 284, 292-93, 902 P.2d 673 

(1995) (discussing increasingly aggressive tone and nature of defendant’s threats), 

abrogated on other grounds by State v. Kilgore, 147 Wn.2d 288, 53 P.3d 974 (2002). 

When the threat is against a criminal justice participant, reasonableness is evaluated based 

on how a reasonable person in that position would have reacted. Boyle, 183 Wn. App. 

at 7.

The evidence supports the jury’s finding that Officer White’s fear was reasonable. 

Under Mr. Pawley’s interpretation of reasonableness, Officer White’s fear could only be 
No. 35439-3-III

State v. Pawley

7

reasonable if there was evidence suggesting the threat could be carried out either at the 

time it was communicated or while Mr. Pawley was detained at Geiger. No such 

restriction applies. Rather, the question is whether Officer White reasonably feared that 

Mr. Pawley would kill him immediately or in the future. RCW 9A.46.020(1); Boyle, 

183 Wn. App. at 7 (“‘Threatening words do not constitute harassment if it is apparent to 

the criminal justice participant that the person does not have the present and future ability 

to carry out the threat.’”) (quoting RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b)). While Mr. Pawley’s physical 

restraints during the altercation made it improbable he could have killed Officer White 

when he communicated the threat, those restraints did not prohibit a future attack. 

Officer White did not know when Mr. Pawley would be released from custody. Many of 

Mr. Pawley’s threats referenced his intent to kill Officer White once he was released. 

See, e.g., 1 RP (May 31, 2017) at 119 (“When I get out of this facility, I’ll kill you 

[White].”); id. at 190 (“He was saying if he [Pawley] ever saw White on the street, he’d 

kill him.”). The jury heard testimony that it was possible for inmates to discover which 

cars the corrections officers drove and their general work schedules. This context, 

combined with Mr. Pawley’s aggressive behavior and viewed in the light most favorable 

to the State, provides sufficient evidence that Officer White’s fear was reasonable.
No. 35439-3-III 

State v. Pawley 

CONCLUSION 

Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support Mr. Pawley' s 

conviction for felony harassment of a criminal justice participant, the judgment of 

conviction is affirmed. Based on Mr. Pawley's showing of continued indigence and the 

State's lack of objection, Mr. Pawley's request to deny appellate costs is granted. 

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. 

Pennell, A.CJ. 

WE CONCUR: 

:i-i 

doway,J. 

tlLollh ~ I ~ 

8