Opinion ID: 1195113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Failed Entrapment Defense May be Considered by the Sentencing Court

Text: The SRA provides certain failed defenses may constitute mitigating factors supporting an exceptional sentence below the standard range. In State v. Hutsell, 120 Wash.2d 913, 921, 845 P.2d 1325 (1993), we noted, [t]he mitigating circumstances enumerated in RCW 9.94A.390 represent failed defenses[,] citing with approval David Boerner, Sentencing in Washington 9-23 (1985) as follows: The Guidelines contain a number of mitigating factors applicable in situations where circumstances exist which tend to establish defenses to criminal liability but fail. In all these situations, if the defense were established, the conduct would be justified or excused, and thus would not constitute a crime at all. The inclusion of these factors as mitigating factors recognizes that there will be situations in which a particular legal defense is not fully established, but where the circumstances that led to the crime, even though falling short of establishing a legal defense, justify distinguishing the conduct from that involved where those circumstances were not present. Allowing variations from the presumptive sentence range where factors exist which distinguish the blameworthiness of a particular defendant's conduct from that normally present in that crime is wholly consistent with the underlying principle. Certainly the fact that the substantive law treats these circumstances as complete defenses establishes the legitimacy of their use in determining relative degrees of blameworthiness for purposes of imposing punishment. Hutsell, 120 Wash.2d at 921-22, 845 P.2d 1325 (footnote omitted). These failed defense mitigating circumstances include self-defense, duress, mental conditions not amounting to insanity, and entrapment: RCW 9.94A.390(1)(a) (victim was aggressor); [2] RCW 9.94A.390(1)(c) (defendant acted under duress or compulsion insufficient to constitute a complete defense); RCW 9.94A.390(1)(d) (defendant, with no apparent predisposition to do so, was induced by another to participate in the crime); RCW 9.94A.390(1)(e) (capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct was significantly impaired). [3] See also Boerner, supra, at 9-24 to 9-30. By allowing failed defenses to be treated as mitigating circumstances, the Legislature recognized there may be `circumstances that led to the crime, even though falling short of establishing a legal defense, [that] justify distinguishing the conduct' from that in other similar cases. Hutsell, 120 Wash.2d at 921, 845 P.2d 1325 (quoting Boerner, supra, at 9-23). We have repeatedly indicated an exceptional sentence may be based on a failed entrapment defense pursuant to the express legislative direction in the SRA. In State v. Nelson, 108 Wash.2d 491, 499, 740 P.2d 835 (1987), we recognized a failed entrapment defense as a mitigating factor under RCW 9.94A.390: Lack of predisposition and inducement by others to commit the crime is one of the mitigating factors listed under RCW 9.94A.390[(1)(d)]. Therefore, as a matter of law, this factor justifies the imposition of a nonstandard sentence. Most recently, in State v. Ha'mim, 132 Wash.2d 834, 843, 940 P.2d 633 (1997), we reaffirmed that a failed entrapment defense may be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing: The lack of predisposition to commit a crime alone is not a substantial and compelling reason for a court to impose an exceptional sentence below the range the Legislature has set for a given offense. Its relevance lies only in combination with the finding that the defendant was induced to commit the crime. The lack of the individual's previous inclination to commit the crime, together with the fact that he or she was induced by someone else to participate in the crime, may reduce the culpability of the defendant; the statutory mitigating circumstance recognizes this and allows sentencing courts to deviate from the standard range set by the SRA. RCW 9.94A.390(1)(d). (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals determined Jeannotte's failed entrapment defense could not be considered by the trial court in sentencing Jeannotte, where the jury rejected that defense, relying on State v. Snider, 70 Wash.2d 326, 422 P.2d 816 (1967): [t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury on factual matters.... Since the jury determined Mr. Jeannotte's lack of predisposition was not proved at trial, the court's contrary finding for sentencing purposes is clearly erroneous. Jeannotte, No. 14406-2-III, unpublished op. at 7, 1996 WL 736255. Snider, however, is distinguishable. In Snider, the defendant appealed his conviction for robbery asserting the trial court erred by not granting a new trial because contradictions in the testimony established reasonable doubt he was guilty of robbery. We held the assignment of error without merit, noting: It is the function and province of the jury to weigh the evidence, to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and to decide the disputed questions of fact. The conflicts in the evidence merely present a question of fact for the jury. The jury is the sole and exclusive judge of the evidence, the weight to be given thereto, and the credibility of the witnesses. This court will not reverse if there is substantial evidence to support the jury findings. Snider, 70 Wash.2d at 327, 422 P.2d 816 (citations omitted). Thus, under Snider, a trial court cannot vacate a conviction based on its disagreement with the jury's determination of witness credibility. That is not the issue here. The State also cites from State v. Lively, 130 Wash.2d 1, 16, 921 P.2d 1035, (1996), noting a trial court may not substitute its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the jury[.] However, the language cited by the State addressed a different issue and does not advance the State's position here. In Lively, we noted: The Defendant argues that the mitigating factors listed above [i.e. trial court findings in support of the exceptional sentence based on defendant's failed entrapment defense] in effect result in a finding of entrapment, as a matter of law, by the trial court. This court will not conclude, however, that mitigating factors used to justify an exceptional sentence may be considered in evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence to submit an issue to a jury. Such a finding would result in a reluctance of courts to examine mitigating circumstances which justify exceptional sentences. Moreover, the trial court may not substitute its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the jury where the court has denied a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the evidence. Lively, 130 Wash.2d at 16, 921 P.2d 1035 (emphasis added). In Lively, the trial court considered the defendant's failed entrapment defense in imposing a below-standard-range exceptional sentence. While this Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, overturned Lively's conviction based on the outrageous conduct of the police, both the majority and the concurrence/dissent acknowledged the trial court acted appropriately in considering the failed entrapment defense in imposing the exceptional sentence. The majority opinion relied on findings of fact supporting the exceptional sentence as part of its due process analysis. Lively, 130 Wash.2d at 24-25, 921 P.2d 1035. The concurrence/dissent noted: The trial court in Lively acted appropriately. Following a jury conviction for delivery of cocaine, the trial court acknowledged that mitigating circumstances existed, and thus departed downward from the standard sentencing range. It did not dismiss the prosecution, as the majority would have trial courts do after today's decision. Lively, 130 Wash.2d at 34, 921 P.2d 1035 (Durham, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). Plainly, Pascal, Nelson, Hutsell, and Ha'mim are dispositive of the State's argument that a sentencing court may not properly consider factual evidence apparently rejected by the jury when that jury rejects a defendant's proffered affirmative defense and convicts the defendant. We discern no distinction between the above cited cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty to the offense ( see, e.g., Nelson, Hutsell and Ha'mim ), forgoing a possible defense to the charged crime, and the present case where the jury rejected the defense, as was the case in Pascal. The Legislature did not draw such a distinction in RCW 9.94A.390(1). The Legislature contemplated the sentencing court could treat entrapment and other such circumstances as mitigating when the conviction is based on a rejection of the same defense. These mitigating circumstances would be meaningless if the sentencing court were bound by the jury's rejection of the defense. Thus, contrary to the Court of Appeals holding, a trial court's finding regarding these mitigating circumstances is not clearly erroneous simply because it conflicts with the jury's rejection of the defense. Rather, the issue is whether there is support in the record for the trial court's findings.