Opinion ID: 2570698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Merger: Double Jeopardy

Text: ¶ 7 The State may bring multiple charges arising from the same criminal conduct in a single proceeding. State v. Michielli, 132 Wash.2d 229, 238-39, 937 P.2d 587 (1997). However, state and federal constitutional protections against double jeopardy prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Vladovic, 99 Wash.2d 413, 422, 662 P.2d 853 (1983); Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981); see CONST. art. I, § 9 (No person shall be ... twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.); U.S. CONST. amend. V (same). Within constitutional constraints, the legislature has the power to define criminal conduct and assign punishment to it. State v. Calle, 125 Wash.2d 769, 776, 888 P.2d 155 (1995) (recognizing rape and incest as separate offenses). `Where a defendant's act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy challenge must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.' Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 771, 108 P.3d 753 (quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash.2d 795, 815, 100 P.3d 291 (2004)). Our review is de novo, and legislative intent is the touchstone. Id. ¶ 8 In Calle we set forth a three-part test for determining whether the legislature intended multiple punishments in a particular situation. 125 Wash.2d at 776, 888 P.2d 155. We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. Id. If the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the same evidence Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact. Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777-78, 888 P.2d 155; Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Third, if applicable, the merger doctrine may help determine legislative intent, where the degree of one offense is elevated by conduct constituting a separate offense. Vladovic, 99 Wash.2d at 419, 662 P.2d 853. We have also recognized that, even if two convictions would appear to merge on an abstract level under this analysis, they may be punished separately if the defendant's particular conduct demonstrates an independent purpose or effect of each. Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 773, 108 P.3d 753; State v. Johnson, 92 Wash.2d 671, 680, 600 P.2d 1249 (1979). ¶ 9 Relying on our analysis in State v. Zumwalt, the consolidated case decided under Freeman, Kier argues that the legislature did not intend separate punishments for his first degree robbery and second degree assault convictions because the threat to use force necessary to the assault elevated the robbery to first degree. Br. of Appellant at 10-13. The State responds that our Freeman analysis was wrong. Br. of Resp't at 5, 13-17. ¶ 10 Preliminarily, the State's suggestion that courts should not follow Freeman because it was decided incorrectly, brief of respondent at 5, fails to appreciate the doctrine of stare decisis. We do not lightly set aside precedent, and the burden is on the party seeking to overrule a decision to show that it is both incorrect and harmful. See State v. Devin, 158 Wash.2d 157, 168, 142 P.3d 599 (2006) (citing In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wash.2d 649, 653, 466 P.2d 508 (1970)). The State makes no attempt to meet this burden. ¶ 11 Moreover, we are persuaded that Freeman correctly analyzed the robbery and assault statutes at issue to conclude that second degree assault merges into first degree robbery, while first degree assault, which carries a much larger penalty, does not. Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 773-78, 108 P.3d 753. Notably, the legislature has amended the second degree assault statute since Freeman without taking any action in response to our decision. See LAWS of 2007, ch. 79, § 2; see also Buchanan v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 94 Wash.2d 508, 511, 617 P.2d 1004 (1980) (noting presumption of legislative acquiescence in judicial interpretation where statute is amended following court decision without change to relevant portions). We are confident that our analysis in Freeman accurately reflects the legislature's intent. ¶ 12 The central question, then, is whether this case is like the Zumwalt case in Freeman, specifically whether Kier's second degree assault conviction merges into his first degree robbery conviction, where the carjacking incident giving rise to both charges involved two victims, and where the prosecutor in closing argument identified the driver as the victim of the robbery and the passenger as the victim of the assault. [1] ¶ 13 While the situation here is not identical to Zumwalt, in light of the way this case was charged and presented to the jury, we conclude that Kier's assault conviction merges into his robbery conviction. ¶ 14 The jury convicted Kier under RCW 9A.56.200(1)(a)(i)-(ii), formerly RCW 9A.56.200(1)(b) (1975), which provides that a person is guilty of first degree robbery if he is armed with a deadly weapon or displays what appears to be a firearm or deadly weapon, during the commission of a robbery. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 5. The general definition of robbery requires the taking of property by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to a person or his property, or the person or property of anyone. RCW 9A.56.190. Kier was also convicted of second degree assault under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c), which finds a person guilty if he, inter alia, assaults another with a deadly weapon. CP at 6. There is no definition of assault in the criminal code, and Washington courts apply the common law definitions of assault. State v. Walden, 67 Wash.App. 891, 893, 841 P.2d 81 (1992). One common law form of assault involves putting another in apprehension or fear of harm, regardless of whether the actor intends to inflict or is incapable of inflicting such harm. Id. at 893-94, 841 P.2d 81; State v. Wilson, 125 Wash.2d 212, 218, 883 P.2d 320 (1994). At Kier's trial, the jury was instructed on this common law definition of assault. CP at 112. ¶ 15 When the definitions of first degree robbery and second degree assault are set side by side, it is clear that both charges required the State to prove that Kier's conduct created a reasonable apprehension or fear of harm. Because Kier was also charged with being armed with or displaying a deadly weapon, this was the means of creating that apprehension or fear. CP at 6. The merger doctrine is triggered when second degree assault with a deadly weapon elevates robbery to the first degree because being armed with or displaying a firearm or deadly weapon to take property through force or fear is essential to the elevation. RCW 9A.56.200(1)(a)(i)-(ii); RCW 9A.56.190; RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c); see Wilson, 125 Wash.2d at 218, 883 P.2d 320; Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 780, 108 P.3d 753. ¶ 16 The State seeks to distinguish this case from Zumwalt based on the elevating factor here being the deadly weapon rather than the causes substantial bodily harm prong of the assault statute. RCW 9A.36.021(1)(b); Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 770, 108 P.3d 753. It relies upon State v. Esparza, 135 Wash.App. 54, 64-66, 143 P.3d 612 (2006), review denied, 161 Wash.2d 1004, 166 P.3d 719 (2007). There, Division One of the Court of Appeals held that a person convicted of attempted first degree robbery under the [d]isplays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon prong of the robbery statute and second degree assault under the [a]ssaults another with a deadly weapon prong of the assault statute arising out of the same incident can permissibly be punished for having committed both offenses, thus distinguishing Zumwalt. RCW 9A.56.200(1)(a)(ii); RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c) ¶ 17 Importantly, the elevated charge at issue in Esparza was attempted first degree robbery. Proof of an attempted robbery requires only proof of intent to commit robbery and a substantial step toward carrying out that intent. RCW 9A.28.020(1). The Court of Appeals recognized that any number of actions proved at Esparza's trial constituted a substantial step toward the attempted robbery and thus, the assault was not necessary to elevate the charge to first degree. Esparza, 135 Wash.App. at 63-64, 143 P.3d 612. This followed the reasoning of State v. Beals, 100 Wash.App. 189, 997 P.2d 941, review denied, 141 Wash.2d 1006, 10 P.3d 1074 (2000), where the court rejected defendant Beals' merger argument and observed: A completed second degree assault is not necessary to prove attempt to commit first degree robbery, and it is unlikely the legislature intended ... the merger doctrine to so apply here. The attempted robbery was complete as soon as Beals formed the requisite intent and took the hammer in hand, and is distinguishable from Beals' act of hitting Perry on the head to complete the assault.... Similarly here, all that was required to satisfy the elements of attempted first degree robbery was a substantial step, which may or may not have included actual injury to the victim. The merger doctrine is thus inapplicable. Id. at 193-95, 997 P.2d 941 (citations omitted). Kier was convicted of completed first degree robbery, which required more than a substantial step. That the assault here involved assault with a deadly weapon, rather than by the infliction of substantial bodily harm, does not defeat application of the merger doctrine. The fact remains that the completed assault was necessary to elevate the completed robbery to first degree. See Freeman, 153 Wash.2d at 778, 108 P.3d 753.