Opinion
No. 22701-4-III
Filed: May 3, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Benton County. Docket No: 03-8-00963-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/15/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Mike Richard Johnston.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Sharon Marie Brown, Attorney at Law, PO Box 2173, Hillsboro, OR 97123-1921.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Julie Elizabeth Long, Benton County Prosecutors Office, M/S G, 7122 W Okanogan Pl, Kennewick, WA 99336.
Alex Edwards, a juvenile, was convicted of felony harassment for threatening his father's girl friend with a knife. Claiming the evidence does not support his conviction, he appeals. We affirm.
On November 16, 2003, Alex was released from detention and returned home. When he went into his room, he noticed some of his things were missing. He became irate.
Becky Harris was engaged to Alex's father and resided with them. She tried to diffuse the situation when she saw Alex was holding a knife to his throat. The knife had a 1 to 2 inch blade. Alex said he did not want to live and he was going crazy. Ms. Harris decided to call 911. He tried to grab the phone out of her hand and held the knife towards her and said `nobody deserves to live.' Report of Proceedings at 7. She then locked herself in the bathroom, called 911, and told the dispatcher that Alex had threatened her with the knife and she did not want him at the house. She later said she locked herself in the bathroom because she was afraid he was going to hurt her.
Officer Erika Sawyer responded to the incident and placed Alex in custody. He denied wanting to kill himself. She spoke with Ms. Harris and Alex's father as well. Ms. Harris told the officer she felt threatened.
The State charged Alex with felony harassment. Ms. Harris and Officer Sawyer testified for the State.
Alex's father testified for the defense. He said he did not see Alex threaten Ms. Harris. Alex also testified and denied threatening Ms. Harris.
The court found Alex guilty of felony harassment. The court imposed a manifest injustice sentence of 24-32 weeks with credit for 60 days already served. This appeal follows.
Alex claims the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction. We review this challenge by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Williams, 144 Wn.2d 197, 212, 26 P.3d 890 (2001). By challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Alex admits the truth of all the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 597, 888 P.2d 1105, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 843 (1995).
Alex was charged with felony harassment pursuant to RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i) and RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b). The State alleged Alex harassed Ms. Harris by threatening to immediately cause her bodily harm. Because his threat was to kill her, his actions constituted a felony. See RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i), .020(2)(b).
RCW 9A.46.020 criminalizes pure speech. State v. Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d 36, 41, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004). Accordingly, the statute "must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind." Id. (quoting Williams, 144 Wn.2d at 207). In order to preserve the right to free speech, courts must assess the statement at issue to determine if it falls within the protection of the First Amendment. Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d at 42. Statements that qualify as `true threats' are not protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 43. A conviction for felony harassment based upon a threat to kill, as here, `requires that the State satisfy both the First Amendment demands — by proving a true threat was made — and the statute, by proving all the statutory elements of the crime.' Id. at 54.
Alex claims his statements to Ms. Harris were not `true threats.' A `true threat' is a statement causing a reasonable speaker to believe that, given the context or the circumstances surrounding the statement, the listener would view the statement as a real threat. State v. J.M., 144 Wn.2d 472, 477-78, 28 P.3d 720 (2001). `A true threat is a serious threat, not one said in jest, idle talk, or political argument.' State v. Hosier, 124 Wn. App. 696, 711, 103 P.3d 217 (2004). Whether a true threat has been made is determined under an objective standard that focuses on the speaker. Id. The First Amendment does not require that the speaker actually intend to carry out the threat, and the State need not prove such intent. Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d at 48. The relevant inquiry is whether there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable person in Alex's position would foresee that his statement would be interpreted as a serious threat. Id.
Alex became upset when he returned home from juvenile detention to find items missing from his room. When Ms. Harris tried to talk with him about it, he became enraged. At this point, she noticed he had a knife to his throat and was threatening to hurt himself. Thereafter, he pointed the knife at her and said nobody deserves to live. A reasonable person in Alex's position could foresee this statement would be taken as a serious threat. See Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d at 53. His comment was neither in jest or idle talk nor made in a political argument. Ms. Harris did not think he was joking. Ms. Harris's actions demonstrate she felt threatened. In these circumstances, a true threat was indeed made.
Likewise, the statutory elements have been established. Alex told Ms. Harris no one deserved to live. He was threatening to hurt himself as well as Ms. Harris. Her actions indicated she was fearful he would harm her. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
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.
SWEENEY, J. and BROWN, J., Concur.