Court Opinion

ID: 9954518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 15:21:04.976058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:57.351064
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                MARCH 26, 2024
                                                          In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                         WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                             DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                          )         No. 39146-9-III
                                              )
                     Respondent,              )
                                              )
   v.                                         )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                              )
JEANIE MARIE LUCY,                            )
                                              )
                     Appellant.               )

        PENNELL, J. — Jeanie Lucy appeals her two convictions for assault in the third

degree. We affirm.

                                         FACTS

        Moses Lake Police Officer Chase Pitt approached Jeanie Lucy after responding to

a service call. Ms. Lucy admitted to being intoxicated, and her responses to Officer Pitt’s

questions did not make sense. She became agitated and began yelling and flailing her

arms. She continued yelling despite Officer Pitt’s attempts to communicate with her.

Officer Pitt told Ms. Lucy if she continued yelling, he would place her under arrest.

Ms. Lucy placed her arms to her sides and slightly behind her, and walked quickly toward

Officer Pitt with her chest pushed forward. Officer Pitt believed Ms. Lucy was going to

assault him, so he put his hand up in a defensive manner, but did not walk toward her.
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

With her arms still at her sides and slightly behind her, Ms. Lucy came into contact with

Officer Pitt’s hand, and then pulled her hands up. Officer Pitt then grabbed Ms. Lucy’s

right arm, placed her on the ground, and put her under arrest.

       Officer Yonatan Mengist arrived on scene after Ms. Lucy had been handcuffed

and was sitting on the ground. Ms. Lucy thrashed around while Officer Mengist and

another officer on scene assisted her to a patrol vehicle. During this process, Ms. Lucy

turned toward Officer Mengist, a Black man, and called him the N-word. Then, almost

simultaneously, she kicked him in the leg. As she was being placed in the patrol vehicle,

Ms. Lucy kicked Officer Mengist again.

       Ms. Lucy was charged with one count of assault in the third degree against Officer

Mengist, and one count of assault in the third degree against Officer Pitt.

       Footage from the officers’ body cameras was admitted at trial and showed

Ms. Lucy’s interaction with Officer Pitt and then with Officer Mengist. The footage did

not show Ms. Lucy kick Officer Mengist. Officer Mengist testified at trial. When asked

whether it appeared as if Ms. Lucy kicked him intentionally, he stated:

       “I mean it very well could have been her just thrashing so much that she
       unintentionally did it, but she made a, I mean a racial slur and then—”
       ....
       “—just thrashing, so it could have been intentional that she was trying to
       kick me or maybe get me away from her.”

                                             2
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

1 Rep. of Proc. (Aug. 17, 2022) at 123.

       Officer Pitt testified at trial. He stated, “[Ms. Lucy] began walking toward[] me,

she appeared to be very upset, so I put my hand in front of her as she came into contact

with me.” Id. at 101.

       Basically, [Ms. Lucy] was walking toward[] me, I believe she was going
       to assault me, so I put my hand up in a defensive manner, I didn’t walk
       toward[] her, she came into contact with me, and then she put her hands
       up and then that’s when I took hold of I believe her right arm and began
       to gently place her on the ground.

Id. He testified, “[Ms. Lucy’s] body came into contact with me, pushing me backwards.”

Id. at 102. He confirmed the contact was unwanted.

       Before trial, Ms. Lucy objected under ER 401, ER 402, ER 403, and ER 404 to the

admissibility of the body camera footage where she used the N-word, citing the language

as unduly prejudicial and irrelevant. The trial court allowed the evidence, finding it to be

probative of animus toward Officer Mengist and assaultive intent. The court provided the

jury the following curative instruction at the outset of trial:

       During trial, you may hear recorded audio or witness testimony that
       [Ms. Lucy] used derogatory or racially offensive language. You may
       not consider this language for the purpose of concluding that [Ms. Lucy]
       has a particular character trait or was acting in conformity with any
       particular character trait.

Id. at 94. The body camera footage was played to the jury. In closing argument,

                                               3
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

the prosecutor argued:

               Now, what is the evidence? Well, we can see the derogatory
       language used by [Ms. Lucy] toward[] Officer Mengist. It’s the [S]tate’s
       position that this shows intent. It’s also the [S]tate’s argument that we can
       infer the actions of [Ms. Lucy] based on the totality of the circumstances
       here, her demeanor, her language, et cetera.

Id. at 168.

       The jury found Ms. Lucy guilty on both counts of assault. She now appeals.

                                        ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of the evidence

       Ms. Lucy argues there was insufficient evidence to prove she intended to assault

Officer Pitt, and thus, the evidence cannot support her conviction of assault against

Officer Pitt. We disagree.

       Claims of insufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. State v. Rich, 184

Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). “When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence, we must determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Stotts, 26 Wn. App. 2d 154,

163, 527 P.3d 842 (2023) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.

2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a

                                              4
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

criminal case, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the

State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d

192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). “A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s

evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Id.

       To prove its case, the State needed to show Ms. Lucy’s assaultive conduct against

Officer Pitt was “intentional.” See Clerk’s Papers at 144 (jury instruction defining

“assault”). “A person acts with intent or intentionally when [they] act[] with the objective

or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.” RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a).

Intent may be “inferred as a logical probability from all the facts and circumstances.”

State v. Pedro, 148 Wn. App. 932, 951, 201 P.3d 398 (2009).

       The evidence here amply showed intent. The body camera footage showed that

Ms. Lucy essentially charged at Officer Pitt. According to Officer Pitt, he put his hand

up in a defensive manner, but he did not move toward Ms. Lucy. The video is consistent

with this explanation. Ms. Lucy’s actions toward Officer Pitt were indicative of an

intentional assault. Sufficient evidence supports her conviction.

Evidentiary challenges to body camera footage

       Ms. Lucy contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting

evidence of the body camera footage where she used a racial epithet directed at Officer

                                             5
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

Mengist. She argues the footage containing the slur was irrelevant under ER 401 and

ER 402 and more prejudicial than probative under ER 403. We disagree.

       We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and defer

to those rulings unless “‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial

court.’” State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904, 913-14, 16 P.3d 626 (2001) (quoting State v.

Ellis, 136 Wn.2d 498, 504, 963 P.2d 843 (1998)); see State v. Hamlet, 133 Wn.2d 314,

324, 944 P.2d 1026 (1997). “Abuse occurs when the trial court’s discretion is ‘manifestly

unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” State v.

Sanford, 128 Wn. App. 280, 284, 115 P.3d 368 (2005) (quoting State ex rel. Carroll v.

Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971)).

       Here, the evidence of the racial slur was relevant. The slur was uttered at the same

time Ms. Lucy kicked Officer Mengist. It was therefore probative of her mental state and

tended to show Ms. Lucy’s actions against Officer Mengist were intentional. This meets

the standard for relevance. See ER 401.

       Evidence of the racial slur was also not unduly prejudicial. The statement was part

of the res gestae of the offense. It was the State’s key evidence showing Ms. Lucy’s

conduct against Officer Mengist was intentional. The court issued a limiting instruction,

explaining that the jury was not to consider the evidence for improper character purposes.

                                             6
No. 39146-9-III
State v. Lucy

The evidence was properly admitted over Ms. Lucy’s ER 403 objection. See State v.

Bedada, 13 Wn. App. 2d 185, 193-94, 463 P.3d 125 (2020) (identifying the ER 403

balancing test).

                                    CONCLUSION

       The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                          _________________________________
                                          Pennell, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________
Fearing, C.J.

______________________________
Cooney, J.

                                             7