Court Opinion

ID: 9793180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:06.620342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:37.225771
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
Facts of Case
The defendant appeals from his conviction of grand larceny arising out of the theft of a purse containing $635 from the lounge of the Hilton Inn on Pacific Highway South in King County.
The testimony of the witnesses was stipulated and the case tried to the court.
During the course of the trial judge's oral decision, he initially expressed doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. Without adjourning court, however, he continued on to hear additional arguments and finally concluded that there was sufficient evidence and found the defendant guilty.
The appeal presents one principal issue.
Issue
Under the circumstances presented, did the trial judge's initial expression of doubt concerning the sufficiency of the evidence against the defendant constitute an acquittal, thus rendering the defendant's subsequent conviction violative of the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy?
Decision
Conclusion. The defendant was tried but once and his conviction is affirmed.
For centuries, there has been ingrained in the jurisprudence of most civilized societies, including our own, a moral sentiment opposed to the idea of trying an accused more than once for a single crime.
*691The double jeopardy prohibitions in our federal and state constitutions embody that concept, and express the just and self-evident social policy that a person who has been tried and acquitted should be able to leave that phase of life behind and plan for the future without apprehension of renewed prosecution or additional punishment. U.S. Const, amend. 5; Const, art. 1, § 9.
Our State Supreme Court has expressed the reasons underlying the constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy as follows:
The essence of this guarantee is that no person may be forced to twice "run the gantlet" for an alleged offense. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199, 78 S. Ct. 221, 6 A.L.R.2d 1119 (1957). In Green at page 187, the court explained the rationale for this rule:
The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.
State v. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d 577, 579, 512 P.2d 718 (1973). All of that is entirely different, however, from holding that when a judge before whom a case is tried finds a defendant guilty, enters findings of fact and conclusions of law to that effect and then pronounces sentence, if any words gleaned from the judge's oral decision can be construed as amounting to language of acquittal, then the conviction, judgment and sentence must be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
Here the trial judge in his oral decision reasoned aloud to his final decision. That is to be commended, not discouraged, since "the reason of a resolution is more to be considered than the resolution itself." Cage v. Acton, 88 Eng. Rep. 1327, 12 Mod. 288, 294 (K.B. 1699). Furthermore, in giving respective counsel the benefit of the court's *692reasoning, all counsel were provided with the opportunity to present additional argument and input into the trial court's ultimate decision. That, too, is beneficial to the cause of justice.
When a trial court's oral decision concludes with a clear finding that, the defendant is guilty, as this one did, any language which may be construed to the contrary in an earlier part of that same oral decision does not amount to acquittal or constitute former jeopardy. Nothing in the history or traditions of the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy suggest such a result.
Negative findings are not required to support a trial court's dismissal of a criminal action for insufficiency of the evidence, but in order to be final, the action taken must signal an end to the case. State v. Bastinelli, 81 Wn.2d 947, 506 P.2d 854 (1973). See also State v. Motycka, 21 Wn. App. 798, 586 P.2d 913 (1978). The following observation of Justice Hale in his concurring opinion in Bastinelli, supra at 955 is pertinent:
Made as they were by the trial judge at the conclusion of the evidence and immediately preceding an adjournment without reservation or advisement or continuance, the court's declaration, in my opinion, constituted an affirmative finding by the judge as the trier of the facts that the evidence had not proven the accused guilty. At that juncture, it was as though a jury had returned its good and sufficient verdict of not guilty.
In the case before us, however, the following sequence occurred. The trial court in discussing the stipulated evidence with the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel said:
It would be my decision that the matter be dismissed, primarily with the doubts raised with regard to it in light of the way the stipulation developed stemming from the Court's earlier findings which were modified, for good reason, and without the development of a trial of the facts that I think are key in connection with the findings here, and I think to some extent are bottomed on the aftermath of testimony which the Court found ultimately *693not admissible, and which would have been, I think, presented in a substantially different posture had the suppression been granted beforehand and were we able to go to trial on this issue.
The deputy prosecuting attorney responded:
Now, well — okay, I don't see any reason to go into it any further. I would request that written findings and conclusions, and a formal order of dismissal be entered, so that the State may evaluate its position and possibly take the matter up on appeal.
It is apparent that no one took these remarks as a final determination of the case, because there was no adjournment and the discussion between court and counsel continued. Nothing in the record indicates that the defendant, who was present, left. The court was still in the decision-making process.
The record does show some indication that the clerk in attendance may have made some notes concerning the above quoted statements of the trial judge, which notes may have been subsequently erased. Should that have occurred, it would do no more than reflect the actions of the judge in arriving at his ultimate decision, which was a finding of "guilty." Furthermore, as the trial judge noted,
I did not instruct the clerk to write any notes, nor did I approve those notes as an entry. I don't believe that the decision of the court is the final one until there is something officially lodged under my direction in the court records.
The situation in State v. Aleshire, 89 Wn.2d 67, 568 P.2d 799 (1977) was similar to that presented here. There the trial judge wrote a letter to counsel concluding with the words "[t]he case is dismissed" and then 3 days later changed his mind. In concluding that there was no double jeopardy, the State Supreme Court held:
Either a journal entry or more likely and preferably a formal order would have been necessary to terminate the matter. The orderly administration of justice should not be predicated upon letters to counsel.
*694State v. Aleshire, supra at 70. So it is in the present case. Here there was neither a journal entry of acquittal nor a formal order of acquittal.
State v. Bastinelli, supra, which is cited by the defendant, does not support the defendant's position. In State v. Aleshire, supra, the court referred to Bastinelli and distinguished it as follows:
The judge orally announced that he found the defendant not guilty and the same day entered and signed a journal entry that defendant was not guilty. We held that that action terminated the matter and the court could not reconsider. We pointed out that the journal entry was made without reservation and not subject to further proceedings. Here, further proceedings would ensue routinely.
State v. Aleshire, supra at 70. Similarly, there was no journal entry here and further proceedings would also ensue routinely.
A recent case in point is United States v. Baker, 419 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1969), in which the trial court granted the defendant's motion for acquittal and then shortly thereafter reconsidered and reinstated the charge. In concluding that this did not constitute double jeopardy, the second circuit held:
In the case before us, no final judgment of acquittal was ever entered, and certainly [the defendant] was not subjected to the harassment of successive prosecutions. Nor did the prosecution seek a delay in order to obtain a more favorable opportunity to convict. The only prejudice [the defendant] suffered is psychological; his hopes were first raised, then quickly lowered. But so ephemeral and insubstantial an injury is not proscribed by the Constitution.
United States v. Baker, supra at 89. So it also is in the present case. Here there was no delay by the prosecuting attorney and the defendant was not subjected to the harassment of successive prosecutions. As in Baker, it is true that the defendant's hopes may have been raised momentarily, but that did not violate his constitutional *695rights in any way.
This is simply a case where the trial judge in his oral decision initially indicated one way but finally decided another. It is not the first time that a conscientious judge has been persuaded by reason and logic to change his or her mind, nor will it be the last. The language of the double jeopardy clause of the state and federal constitutions and the sound reasons of public policy underlying them do not prohibit what happened here. U.S. Const, amend. 5; Const, art. 1, § 9. The defendant did not have to run the gauntlet twice. He was tried once and convicted once.
The defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court. They are sufficient to sustain the conviction and are supported by the record.
Affirmed.
Williams, J., concurs.