Opinion ID: 2516514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State v. Cronin

Text: On May 3, 1994, Timothy Cronin and fellow inmate Michael Roberts escaped from a minimum-security prison in Mission, British Columbia, Canada. The two men crossed the Canadian border into the United States and proceeded to embark on a crime spree in this state and the state of Oregon. Their criminal endeavors came to an end when they were arrested after robbing a health food store in Salem, Oregon. Cronin and Roberts were apprehended in their get-away vehiclea gray Chevrolet Blazer that was registered to Mr. Eli Cantu of King County, Washington. After telephone attempts to contact Cantu were unsuccessful, Oregon authorities contacted the King County police and asked them to visit Cantu's residence in Edmonds in order to determine if Cronin and Roberts had stolen Cantu's vehicle. Upon entering Cantu's flat, the police officers found his lifeless body tied to a chair. A pool of blood, apparently caused by a fatal stab wound, lay beneath his body This finding prompted two King County detectives to travel to Salem to speak with Cronin about Cantu's death. The detectives gave Cronin his Miranda [5] warnings and then proceeded to take a tape-recorded statement from him after he indicated he understood his rights and was willing to make a statement. The State subsequently charged Cronin in King County Superior Court with felony murder in the first degree and, in the alternative, premeditated first degree murder with alleged aggravating circumstances that the murder was committed: (1) to conceal the commission of a crime or to protect or conceal the identity of the perpetrator, and (2) in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from a robbery in the first or second degree or a kidnapping in the first degree. [6] During a CrR 3.5 [7] hearing regarding the admissibility of the statement Cronin gave to King County detectives, the deputy prosecuting attorney told the trial court that [i]t's our anticipation at this point that we do not and will not be using Mr. Cronin's statement in our case in chief, but we do want to have the opportunity to use it to rebut Mr. Cronin should he take the stand[.] VRP at 4. After hearing testimony from the King County detectives that interviewed Cronin shortly after his arrest, the trial court ruled that Cronin's statement would be admissible if offered by the state in their case in chief and that the statement could be used for cross examination or rebuttal purposes. VRP at 39. After the trial commenced, the State decided to introduce Cronin's statement in its case in chief. The State acknowledged that initially it had not intended to use Cronin's statement in its case in chief, but reconsidered its decision after Cronin's counsel suggested in his opening statement that Cronin was not present with Roberts at the murder scene, and cross-examined a State's witness to cast doubt upon his identification of Cronin at the crime scene. Br. of Resp't at 41. Over objection by Cronin's counsel, the trial court concluded that the statement would be admitted. In his statement to the detectives, Cronin conceded that he had escaped from prison with Roberts and, that together with Roberts, he paid a visit to Cantu, a person whom Cronin described as Roberts's friend. Essentially, Cronin claimed that Roberts asked Cantu if it would be possible for Cantu to help them by letting Roberts and Cronin tie up Cantu and take his vehicle so that it would appear that Cantu was not an accessory. Cantu, according to Cronin, was initially reluctant but relented after Cronin said to Cantu, just let us at least tie you up and we're gone, we're out of here. According to Cronin, Roberts ordered Cronin to help him tie Cantu to a chair and together they bound Cantu's hands. Cronin said that he then watched as Roberts fastened Cantu to the chair and put tape over Cantu's mouth. Cronin said that he and Roberts then moved Cantu into a hallway where he could not be seen or heard. Cronin indicated that Cantu was fine at that point. Cronin informed the detectives that he took Cantu's wallet and keys to Cantu's Chevrolet Blazer, and turned it around so that Roberts and he could depart. According to Cronin, Roberts appeared agitated after they drove away from Cantu's home. Eventually, Roberts informed Cronin that Cantu was dead and said, I signed it the same way I did my last one. [8] Cronin told the detectives he was frightened at that time, indicating that he had no idea that Roberts was going to kill Cantu. Ex. 221. The State proffered two theories for Cronin's guilt for the murder of Cantu. One theory was that the evidence showed that Cronin was the actual killer of Cantu and that, therefore, he was guilty of premeditated murder. The other theory was that he was an accomplice to Roberts who committed the premeditated murder of Cantu. Cronin asked the trial court to instruct the jury that in order for the jury to find him guilty as an accomplice to premeditated murder, it must find that he shared the same intent or mental state possessed by the principal with reference to the crime charged . The trial court declined to give Cronin's proposed instruction and, instead, 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 either: (1) solicits, commands, encourages or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in committing a crime. CP at 206(jury instruction 7). During closing arguments, the deputy prosecutor contended that Cronin was guilty of premeditated murder as an accomplice and explained the theory behind accomplice liability: A person who is an accomplice to a crime is guilty of that crime. We've all heard the phrase in for a penny, in for a pound, in for a dime, in for a dollar. This is the principle, this is the policy underlying accomplice-liability. VRP at 3998. The deputy prosecutor went on to state that in order for Cronin to be held accountable for premeditated murder, Cronin merely needed to aid or agree to aid: in the commission of the assaultive behavior that unravels into that fatal stabbing. VRP at 3999. Cronin's counsel disputed the State's explanation of accomplice liability and contended that Cronin's statement indicated that he did not know that Roberts was going to kill Cantu and, indeed, did not help plan the killing. Counsel claimed, further, that Cronin was not present when Roberts killed Cantu and was not apprised of the killing until after it occurred. He contended, therefore, that Cronin could not be found guilty as an accomplice to Aggravated Murder in the First Degree. CP at 268. The jury found Cronin guilty of felony murder in the first degree and premeditated murder with one aggravating factor. [9] By special interrogatory the jury found that Cronin did not personally act with a premeditated intent to cause the death of Elijio Cantu. CP at 219. Cronin was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. CP at 171. [10]