Opinion ID: 2630715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Were the references to the victims' birth dates judicial comments on the evidence?

Text: ¶ 11 The State argues that the jury instructions were not judicial comment because the victims' ages were never in dispute. It reasons that any error resulting from stating their ages was, therefore, harmless. Jackman argues that the instructions were judicial comment because a critical element in the crimes at issue was whether the victims were minors. He claims the court informed the jury that the evidence regarding the victims' birth dates was unassailable and the jury never had to render a decision on those facts. ¶ 12 As noted in Levy, we review a challenged jury instruction de novo, within the context of the jury instructions as a whole. Levy, No. 75913-8, 156 Wash.2d at 721, 132 P.3d 1081; State v. Pirtle, 127 Wash.2d 628, 656, 904 P.2d 245 (1995). A judge is prohibited by article IV, section 16 from conveying to the jury his or her personal attitudes toward the merits of the case or instructing a jury that matters of fact have been established as a matter of law. State v. Becker, 132 Wash.2d 54, 64, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997). A judge need not expressly convey his or her personal feelings on an element of the offense; it is sufficient if they are merely implied. State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wash.2d 491, 495, 477 P.2d 1 (1970); State v. Lampshire, 74 Wash.2d 888, 892, 447 P.2d 727 (1968). ¶ 13 In contrast to the references in Levy, the instructions in this case do not differ meaningfully from the instruction in Becker. In Becker, the fundamental basis for the charge was the fact that drugs were being sold near a school. Becker, 132 Wash.2d at 58, 935 P.2d 1321. If the State could not prove that the youth program was a school, it had no case. Id. at 63, 935 P.2d 1321. We held that the explicit reference to the program as a school removed that fact from the jury's consideration. Id. at 66, 935 P.2d 1321. In this case, the fundamental basis for the offenses was the fact that the victims were minors. Absent that fact, Jackman's actions were not illegal. By stating the victims' birth dates in the instructions, the court conveyed the impression that those dates had been proved to be true. Absent the instructions, the jury would have had to consider whether it believed the evidence presented at trial with respect to the victims' birth dates. [7] ¶ 14 We conclude that the jury instructions in this case were judicial comments on the evidence because they allowed the jury to infer that the victims' birth dates had been proved by the State.