Court Opinion

ID: 9909171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:13:08.510983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:10.784919
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                          Washington State
                                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Division Two

                                                                                         December 12, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                          DIVISION II
 STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                 No. 57115-3-II

                                Respondent,

         v.

 ORION ANTHONY RIEDEL,                                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                                Appellant.

       CRUSER, J. — Orion Riedel appeals his exceptional sentence for second degree assault on

the ground that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that his

victim, Benjamin Starkel, was particularly vulnerable. Starkel was high on hallucinogenic

mushrooms when Riedel bit off the tip of Starkel’s thumb at the end of a back-and-forth physical

altercation. Riedel argues that Starkel’s intoxication did not render him particularly vulnerable

because Starkel was still able to physically fight and defend himself to some extent. However,

Starkel testified that the drugs impacted his ability to fight by causing disorientation, haziness,

sluggishness, and a feeling of being lost. Because the State presented evidence that would allow a

rational trier of fact to conclude that Starkel was particularly vulnerable, we affirm Riedel’s

sentence.

                                              FACTS

       Riedel was charged with second degree assault after biting off the tip of Starkel’s thumb

during a physical altercation. Riedel was also charged with three aggravating circumstances:
No. 57115-3-II

excessive injuries, deliberate cruelty, and particularly vulnerable victim. His case was tried before

a jury.

          The State presented evidence that Starkel asked his friend Riedel for a “micro dose” of

hallucinogenic mushrooms. 2 Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) at 488. Riedel gave Starkel a

mushroom stem and cap to eat, a dose that Starkel did not expect would induce hallucinations.

After Starkel ingested the mushrooms, Riedel told Starkel that “it was a very strong mushroom”

that would make him feel high. Id. at 493. Starkel felt “very high” within ten minutes, faster than

he’d ever experienced before, and began to experience distortions to his perception of reality. Id.

Riedel did not take any mushrooms.

          The friends continued to socialize and Starkel drank three or four beers. The friends also

took multiple shots of vodka. Starkel continued to hallucinate, perceiving flashing lights, trails,

and movement that was not there. Another friend found Starkel’s speech to be “incoherent” and

noticed that his eyes were dilated and that he was stumbling. 1 VRP at 354. His hallucinations then

decreased from “a ten to maybe like[ ] a seven or six.” 2 VRP at 511.

          After Riedel made several escalating verbal threats, a fight broke out between Riedel and

Starkel. Starkel threw the first blow. The two engaged in a back-and-forth physical fight until

Riedel pinned Starkel to the ground and punched him in the stomach several times. At this point,

Starkel was unable to breathe and reached toward Riedel’s face to push or scratch him away. Riedel

then grabbed Starkel’s hand, placed Starkel’s left thumb in between his teeth, and bit down.

          Starkel testified that at the time Riedel bit off the tip of his thumb, he was in a “haze” and

felt “real sluggish.” Id. at 520-21. Starkel also testified, “I couldn’t really understand where I was

in my positioning. I just felt lost.” Id. at 521. He testified that he “[a]bsolutely” thought that his

                                                    2
No. 57115-3-II

intoxication impacted his ability to fight Riedel. Id. Starkel also testified that when Riedel was

about to bite his thumb, he pleaded with Riedel to stop, but felt too “paralyzed” to utter more than

a couple words. Id. at 529.

       A jury convicted Riedel and made three special findings: that Riedel inflicted injuries that

substantially exceeded what would be considered substantial bodily harm, that Riedel’s conduct

manifested deliberate cruelty to his victim, and that Riedel knew or should have known that his

victim was particularly vulnerable or could not resist the attack.

       Riedel received an exceptional sentence of 26 months’ confinement. This included six

months for the excessive injury aggravator, four months for deliberate cruelty, and two months for

victim vulnerability. The court declined to find that it would have imposed the same exceptional

sentence based on the first two aggravating factors standing alone, as the State requested. The court

explained its view as follows:

       that the vulnerab[ility] of [Starkel] is probably not as a compelling factor -- it was
       found by the jury, but that one is not as compelling to me. I think the other two
       factors, the deliberate cruelty and excessive injury in particular, and that to me is
       the strongest one, is excessive injury in particular warrant each kind of getting their
       own approach.

Id. at 839. In addition to the aggravating factors, the court also reached its sentence based on

mitigating factors including Riedel’s mental health condition and youthfulness, as well as the fact

that Starkel was the first aggressor.

       Riedel now appeals from his judgment and sentence, arguing that the State failed to present

sufficient evidence that Starkel was a particularly vulnerable victim. He does not challenge the

other aggravating factors.

                                                 3
No. 57115-3-II

                                          DISCUSSION

                                 I. PARTICULAR VULNERABILITY

       Riedel argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of

Starkel’s particular vulnerability. We disagree.

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

       We review a jury’s special verdict finding the existence of an aggravating circumstance

under the sufficiency of the evidence standard. State v. Stubbs, 170 Wn.2d 117, 123, 240 P.3d 143

(2010). Evidence is sufficient if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any

rational trier of fact could find that each element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 (2014). We accept the State’s evidence as true and

draw reasonable inferences in the State’s favor. Id. at 106. We defer to the factfinder for the

purposes of resolving conflicting testimony and evaluating the persuasiveness of the evidence. Id.

We interpret the evidence “ ‘most strongly against the defendant.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Salinas,

119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)).

       RCW 9.94A.535(3)(b) provides that a court may impose a sentence above the standard

range based on a finding that the defendant “knew or should have known that the victim of the

current offense was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance.” This requires showing “(1)

that the defendant knew or should have known (2) of the victim’s particular vulnerability and (3)

that vulnerability must have been a substantial factor in the commission of the crime.” State v.

Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d 280, 291-92, 143 P.3d 795 (2006).

                                                   4
No. 57115-3-II

       The victim’s particular vulnerability is a question of fact. Id. at 292. A victim is particularly

vulnerable “if the victim is more vulnerable to the offense than other victims.” State v. Bedker, 74

Wn. App. 87, 94, 871 P.2d 673 (1994).

       A victim’s vulnerability can arise from the circumstances of the crime. For example, in

State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 680, 260 P.3d 884 (2011), the supreme court held that a jury

relied on sufficient evidence when it found that an assault victim was particularly vulnerable. It

reasoned that the victim was outnumbered, as a solitary victim being attacked by three to five

assailants. Id. It pointed out that witnesses testified that a solitary victim could not have fought

back or defended himself against a group attack. Id. See also State v. Hicks, 61 Wn. App. 923, 931,

812 P.2d 893 (1991) (affirming exceptional sentence based on finding that rape victim, though not

of advanced age, was particularly vulnerable because she was attacked as she slept and was

therefore less capable of resistance compared to other rape victims); cf. State v. Burkins, 94 Wn.

App. 677, 698, 973 P.2d 15 (1999) (vulnerable victim finding not supported where record showed

only that victim used drugs but did not show victim was impaired by them); State v. Crutchfield,

53 Wn. App. 916, 923, 771 P.2d 746 (1989) (same).

B. ANALYSIS

       At issue here is the second element of the aggravating factor, whether Starkel was

particularly vulnerable. Riedel argues that Starkel could not have been particularly vulnerable

because the two men engaged in a back-and-forth altercation and that the evidence therefore did

not show that Starkel was incapacitated and incapable of self-defense. But this argument

misunderstands the case law. A victim need not be completely incapacitated or wholly incapable

of self-defense; rather, the victim must be more vulnerable than a typical victim. See Gordon, 172

                                                  5
No. 57115-3-II

Wn.2d at 680. The fact that Starkel was able to physically fight back to some extent is not

dispositive.

        Riedel next argues that Starkel’s intoxication did not prevent him from thinking rationally.

However, we must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable

to the State. Homan, 181 Wn.2d at 106. The State presented evidence that Starkel was impacted

by the mushrooms both in his physical and mental capacity. Starkel testified that his intoxication

impacted his ability to fight and that he felt “sluggish” and was in a “haze.” 2 VRP at 520-21. He

testified that he “couldn’t really understand” his physical positioning and that he “felt lost.” Id. at

521. And when Riedel had Starkel’s thumb in his mouth, Starkel felt too “paralyzed” to utter more

than a couple words in protest. Id. at 529. Taking this evidence in the light most favorable to the

State, the jury could reasonably conclude that Starkel was particularly vulnerable when compared

to other victims. Thus, we affirm Riedel’s exceptional sentence.

        A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

                                                      CRUSER, J.
 We concur:

 MAXA, J.

 GLASGOW, C.J.

                                                  6