Opinion ID: 2516514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State v. Bui

Text: Linh Ngoc Bui associated with a Seattle gang known as the Viet Boys (VB). Br. of Resp't at 5. [1] On April 6, 1996, Bui and several members of that gang ventured into Seattle's International District for a night of cruising. The gang members rode in two automobiles, a Honda driven by Bui and a Blazer driven by Senh Tang. While engaged in cruising, the VBs happened upon two other cars occupied by members of another gang, the Young Oriental Troop (YOT). As the vehicles of the respective gangs passed each other, one of the YOTs appeared to flash a gang sign. [2] Immediately thereafter, a passenger in Bui's Honda yelled out FOLLOW THEM. 7 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 42. Bui complied. Tang followed suit and joined Bui in following the YOT cars. As the driver of the leading YOT car pulled his vehicle to a stop at an intersection, Bui maneuvered his car so that it blocked the other car's passage. Tang then pulled in behind Bui. At this point a VB gang member exited from each VB car. The young men who exited the cars, Hung Van Nguyen and Lam Giang, then proceeded to open fire on the YOT car that was stopped. That car escaped without injury to any occupants. Passengers in the second YOT car were not, however, as fortunate. As that car approached the intersection at which the VB cars were located, Nguyen and Giang again opened fire. As a result, two YOT members were struck with bullets. This activity caused the second YOT car to quickly speed past the VB shooters who continued firing as the car made its getaway. After the incident, Bui and Tang transported their passengers to a home where some of the VBs lived. Bui, Nguyen, Tang, and Giang were each charged with one count of Assault in the First Degree with the allegation that they used firearms and deadly weapons in the commission of the offense. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1. The State offered to recommend reduced sentences for Bui and Tang in exchange for their testimony at trial. Bui rejected the offer. [3] The State then amended the information to charge Bui and Nguyen with two additional counts of Assault in the First Degree with an allegation that they used firearms and deadly weapons in the commission of the offense. CP at 8. Bui and Ngyuen proceeded to trial with Nguyen. [4] At the conclusion of all the testimony, the trial judge instructed the jury as follows: A person who is an accomplice in the commission of a crime is guilty of that crime whether present at the scene or not. A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of a crime, he or she either: (1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing a crime. CP at 87 (jury instruction 10). Bui's counsel objected to this instruction, arguing that in order for accomplice liability to attach, the defendant must know the general nature of the specific crime that the principal intends to commit. Br. of Appellant at 17. During closing arguments, the prosecutor proffered this explanation of accomplice liability: [A]N ACCOMPLICE IS A PERSON WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE IF HE ENCOURAGES OR AIDS ANOTHER PERSON IN COMMITTING A CRIME WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT WILL PROMOTE OR FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. DOES THE STATE HAVE TO PROVE THAT LINH BUI KNEW THAT THE PERSON IN HIS CAR WOULD GET OUT AND SHOOT? NO. IT'S THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. DID LINH BUI KNOW BY HIS ACTIONS WHEN HE CHASED AFTER ANOTHER CAR, WHEN HE PULLED ACROSS IN FRONT OF THEM AND BLOCKED THEM OFF IN AN INTERSECTION, ALLOWED HIS PASSENGERS TO GET OUT, DOES COMMON SENSE SHOW US THAT HE KNEW HE WAS FACILITATING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME? HARASSMENT? PHYSICAL ASSAULT? ANY CRIME. 9 VRP at 26-27 (emphasis added). Bui's counsel objected to this portion of the prosecutor's argument and asked the trial court to instruct the jury that a defendant's intent to harass could not satisfy the knowledge requirement and thus could not trigger accomplice liability for first degree assault. The trial judge declined to give the additional instruction. During its deliberations the jury submitted the following question to the trial judge: Accomplice liability # 10 states in the commission of a crime[] To be an accomplice to first degree assault, does he need to have knowledge that he is assisting in a first degree assault or that he is promoting a crime of any kind . CP at 14. The trial judge responded to the inquiry: The defendant does not need to know the specific crime (1st ° assault) that will occur but must know the general nature of the crime that will occur[.] CP at 14. The jury found Bui and Nguyen guilty of all three counts of first degree assault, finding that they each used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offenses. CP at 16. At sentencing, Bui moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he knew an assault was going to be committed. The trial court denied his motion but acknowledged that the record was essentially silent on the issue of whether Bui knew there would be a shooting. The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence for the underlying assault convictions of no time in prison and imposed a 60-month firearm enhancement sentence on each of the three convictions, ordering the sentences to run consecutively. Thus, Bui received a 180-month sentence.