Title: State v. King
Citation: 599 P.2d 522, 92 Wash. 2d 541
Docket Number: 46061
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 1979

92 Wn.2d 541 (1979) 599 P.2d 522 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. EDWARD LOPEZ KING, Petitioner. No. 46061. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. August 30, 1979. Sinnitt, Teitge &amp; Sinnitt and Carl D. Teitge, for petitioner. Don Herron, Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph D. Mladinov, Senior Deputy, for respondent. WILLIAMS, J. Petitioner King seeks review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction for second-degree *542 murder.[1]State v. King, 22 Wn. App. 330, 589 P.2d 306 (1979). We affirm. In March of 1977, King was living at the Majestic Hotel in Tacoma, Washington. Larry VanRite, the victim, and VanRite's girlfriend, Cordelia Thomas, were also residents of the hotel. Prior to the events leading to VanRite's death, King had been acquainted with him and Thomas, but had not spent much time socializing with them. On one previous occasion, King had permitted Thomas to hide in his room after she had been beaten by VanRite. The record indicates that VanRite was an alcoholic who became angry and violent when intoxicated. On the morning of March 19, he began to drink and in the early evening he became belligerent and attempted to choke Thomas. During the altercation he also inflicted a slight stab wound to her neck. She fled the room and walked to her car where she planned to spend the night. King and another man happened to see her and at their invitation she accompanied them to a tavern for beer. The three discussed her situation after which King gave her the key to his room and told her she could stay there. She went back to the hotel and entered King's room. King joined her shortly thereafter. After King arrived at his room, VanRite pounded on the door and demanded to speak with King. King said he needed to sleep and asked him to leave. VanRite returned 45 minutes later and said he was looking for Thomas. VanRite left again when King said that he needed to sleep. He returned shortly, however, pounded on the door, and insisted on entering the room. VanRite indicated that he knew Thomas was in the room. King told VanRite he would open the door in a minute. *543 King told Thomas to hide in the closet, which she did. He armed himself with a loaded replica flintlock pistol and placed a knife in his back pocket. He positioned himself behind the door and then opened it. VanRite entered and the altercation immediately ensued. King maintains that VanRite entered the room swinging a claw hammer. King hit VanRite on the side of the head with the gun and stabbed him five times. He then pushed VanRite into the hallway and closed the door. King did not come out again until the police arrived to investigate. VanRite's body was found lying in the hall near King's room. The hammer with the claw down and the handle protruding was found in his left pocket. Between the fingers of his left hand, a cigarette had burned down to a long ash. VanRite had been left-handed. At trial, King admitted knifing VanRite, but argued he was acting in self-defense. He requested that the trial court give his proposed instruction No. 22 relating to self-defense, which provided: The trial court refused to give King's proposed instruction No. 22, although it did generally instruct the jury that the burden of proof regarding the crime charged lay with the State. Instead, the court gave instruction No. 20, which provided: (Italics ours.) The court's instruction No. 29 to the jury provided: The jury found King guilty of second-degree murder. He appealed to Division Two of the Court of Appeals on a number of grounds, including the failure of the trial court to charge the jury with his proposed instruction No. 22. He argued that pursuant to State v. Roberts, 88 Wn.2d 337, 562 P.2d 1259 (1977), the State has the burden of proving that the homicide was not committed in self-defense and that he was entitled to an instruction to that effect. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give this instruction. The court reasoned that the rule articulated in Roberts is inapplicable under the new criminal code. The Court of Appeals stated that: State v. King, supra at 333.[2] Implicit in the Court of Appeals ruling are two determinations. One is that the State has placed the burden of proof on the defendant by removing the words "unless it is excusable or justifiable" from the definition of second-degree murder under the new criminal code. The second determination implied in the Court of Appeals ruling is that the State may constitutionally shift to the defendant the burden of proving self-defense pursuant to Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 53 L. Ed. 2d 281, 97 S. Ct. 2319 (1977). King petitioned for review of that decision. Review was granted. King urges that even under the new criminal code, the State still has the burden of proving the defendant did not act in self-defense. Assuming arguendo that his analysis of the criminal code is correct, we believe the record indicates that he was not prejudiced by the court's failure to give his proposed instruction No. 22. Instruction No. 20, which was proposed to the court by both parties, instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving "all of the following elements". One of the elements set forth by the instruction was: (Italics ours.) *546 The court's instruction thus made "not being either excusable or justifiable" an element of the crime on which the state had the burden of proof. Additionally, the court instructed in instruction No. 29 that a homicide is justifiable when committed in self-defense. [1] It is axiomatic that instructions must be read as a whole. State v. Foster, 91 Wn.2d 466, 589 P.2d 789 (1979); State v. Dana, 73 Wn.2d 533, 439 P.2d 403 (1968). Instructions are sufficient if they permit counsel to satisfactorily argue his or her theory of the case to the jury. State v. Foster, supra; State v. Dana, supra. When viewed together, as instructions must be, we believe that instructions Nos. 20 and 29 allocated to the State the burden of proof on the issue of self-defense and sufficiently permitted King to argue his theory of the case, i.e., that the State had not sustained the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not committed in self-defense. Because we find that the court's instruction sufficiently permitted King to argue his theory of the case, we do not review the Court of Appeals determinations that the State has placed the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant by removing the words "unless it is excusable or justifiable" from the definition of second-degree murder under the new criminal code and that the State may properly do so under Patterson.[3] *547 Another issue raised by defendant is whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the aggressor's duty to withdraw from combat. In instruction No. 34, the court instructed that: [2] King contends that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the aggressor's duty to withdraw from combat. He argues that this instruction should not have been given because there was no evidence that King was the aggressor. He is correct in his assertion that an instruction should not be submitted on issues of fact when they are unsupported by the evidence. See State v. Robinson, 76 Wn.2d 218, 455 P.2d 945 (1969). In this case, however, the record includes substantial evidence indicating that King was the aggressor in the incident resulting in VanRite's death. The record indicates that: King armed himself with a loaded gun and a knife immediately prior to the incident; he stood behind the door while opening it, and during the altercation inflicted five stab wounds on VanRite while receiving no injuries himself; VanRite's body was found with a burned-out cigarette between the fingers of his left hand, which was his dominant hand; and the hammer which King alleges VanRite was swinging during the attack was found tucked in a pocket of VanRite's trousers. *548 Accordingly, we find this contention to be without merit. The conviction is affirmed. UTTER, C.J., ROSELLINI, WRIGHT, BRACHTENBACH, HOROWITZ, DOLLIVER, and HICKS, JJ., and SOUKUP, J. Pro Tem., concur. [1] The relevant portion of the definition of murder in the second degree as defined in RCW 9 A. 32.050(1)(a) states as follows: (1) A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person but without premeditation, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; ... [2] Under the "old" criminal code, murder in the second degree was defined in RCW 9.48.040 (repealed by Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 260, § 9 A. 92.010, p. 858). The relevant portion of that statute provided: The killing of a human being, unless it is excusable or justifiable, is murder in the second degree when 1. Committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed or of another, but without premeditation; ... (Italics ours.) Laws of 1909, ch. 249, § 141, p. 930. [3] Because we do not reach this issue in the present opinion, we need not address the issues raised in State v. Bradley, 20 Wn. App. 340, 581 P.2d 1053 (1978). We note, however, that the rule of Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 53 L. Ed. 2d 281, 97 S. Ct. 2319 (1977), may not be applicable in this case. In Patterson, the court upheld a New York requirement that the defendant affirmatively prove by a preponderance of the evidence "extreme emotional disturbance" as a means to mitigate his culpability for unlawful homicide. The court stated, at page 206, that: "It is plain enough that if the intentional killing is shown, the State intends to deal with the defendant as a murderer unless he demonstrates the mitigating circumstances." It cannot be said, however, that under Washington's statutory scheme the State intends to deal with the defendant as a murderer unless he shows self-defense, because under Washington law a killing done in self-defense is a lawful act. See RCW 9 A. 16.050. See also Porter v. Leeke, 457 F. Supp. 253 (D.S.C. 1978). Therefore, we perceive serious questions regarding the appropriateness of applying the ruling in Patterson to the defense of self-defense as set forth in this state's criminal code.