IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
rv,
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DIVISION ONE
Respondent,
U5
No. 74167-5-1
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION O
MISTY CHERIE CROSSLAND,
CO
Appellant. FILED: January 19, 2016
Dwyer, J. — Following a jury trial, Misty Crossland was convicted of
assault in the third degree. On appeal, Crossland contends (1) that she was
denied her constitutional right to a unanimous verdict,1 (2) that the trial court
erred by denying her request for a voluntary intoxication instruction, and (3) that
insufficient evidence supports her conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.
On July 24, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., City of Centralia Officers
William Phipps and Doug Lowrey responded to a call for assistance in removing
a woman from the male caller's apartment. When police arrived, the man
informed the officers that he and the woman, Crossland, were on their third date.
Crossland had come to the man's house at his request, and had brought her
1She also contends that her attorney was ineffective for failing to request a unanimity
instruction.
No. 74167-5-1/2
seven-year-old son with her, who was sleeping on the couch. After Crossland
had consumed four shots of whiskey, the man had asked to have intercourse
with her. Crossland had refused and, as a result, the man had asked her to
leave. Because she was too drunk to drive home, Crossland had requested to
stay the night on the floor while her son slept on the couch. After refusing to
permit Crossland to stay, the man had offered to call her a cab. When Crossland
refused the cab, the man had called the police.
Phipps instructed Crossland that, because she was no longer welcome at
the apartment, she was obliged to leave. The officers intended to remove
Crossland from the premises but not to cite her for any crime. Phipps offered to
drive Crossland and her son home and Lowrey offered to pick up the sleeping
seven-year-old and carry him to the police car. Crossland agreed.
As Lowrey attempted to pick up Crossland's sleeping child, she hovered
around him, crowding him in, and "getting in his elbow room." Phipps stepped in,
grabbed Crossland by the arm, and pulled her into the living room, allowing
Lowrey more space to pick up the child. Meanwhile, Crossland continuously
tried to verbally engage with the man from the apartment. Phipps turned
Crossland around and directed her down the apartment stairs. She was irate
and did not want to leave the apartment.
The officers and Crossland made their way down the apartment stairs,
toward the patrol cars across the street. Once they reached the sidewalk area,
Crossland continued to yell at both the officers and the man, who was watching
No. 74167-5-1/3
from the upstairs patio. Again, Phipps turned Crossland around, directing her
toward his patrol car.
A step or two later, Crossland once again turned around to yell back at the
man. Phipps once again grabbed her by the shoulder to keep her moving
forward toward the patrol car. At this time, Phipps saw Crossland's right arm
come in a wide arc toward his head and shoulder area. Phipps perceived this act
to be an intentional attempt to strike him. Although Phipps was able to block the
brunt of the blow, he was hit on the top of his shoulder.
The incident was visible to Lowrey, who was then descending the
apartment stairs. Lowrey observed Crossland "yank" away from Phipps's grasp
and use her right hand and turn to strike the officer. Lowrey concurred that the
act appeared to be intentional, as he observed Crossland deliberately twist her
body to throw the swing toward Phipps. Crossland's overall demeanor at this
time was "[hysterical, volatile, just very upset and irrational."
After the assault, Phipps put Crossland in a headlock and brought her
down to the ground, where she was handcuffed to prevent further incident.
Phipps testified that he would not have taken her to the ground if she had not
swung at him, as there would have been no need to do so.
Based on the foregoing events, the State charged Crossland with assault
in the third degree - assault on a peace officer.
At trial, Crossland denied that she had ever struck Phipps. She testified
that, after leaving the man's apartment, she had asked to drop belongings off at
her vehicle before being driven home. Crossland recalled that, when she
No. 74167-5-1/4
returned from her vehicle, she had the impression that she was being treated as
if she were a criminal. In response, she "explained to [Phipps] that [she] did not
hit [the man in the apartment] and that [she] did, however, poke [him] in the
chest." According to Crossland, as she was recounting this to Phipps, she
demonstrated the chest poke for him by "touching" Phipps in the chest. That was
when Phipps "threw [her] to the ground and put [her] under arrest."
Phipps denied that Crossland had dropped off belongings in her vehicle
after exiting the apartment. Both officers denied that Crossland had poked
Phipps in the chest.
Crossland was convicted as charged. She now timely appeals.
II
Crossland first contends that her constitutional right to jury unanimity was
violated. This is so, she asserts, because evidence was admitted of two
separate acts of assault but the State did not make an election and no unanimity
instruction was given.2 We disagree.
Criminal defendants have a right to a unanimous jury verdict. Wash.
Const, art. I, § 21; State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wn.2d 702, 707, 881 P.2d 231
(1994). If evidence of multiple acts that could constitute the crime charged is
presented, the State "musttell the jury which act to rely on in its deliberations or
the court must instruct the jury to agree on a specific criminal act." State v.
Kitchen, 110 Wn 7ri 403, 409. 756 P.2d 105 (1988): State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d
566, 572, 683 P.2d 173 (1984). Failure to do so is constitutional error because of
2Crossland did not request a unanimity instruction at trial. However, this is an issue of
constitutional magnitude that may be raised for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3).
No. 74167-5-1/5
"the possibility that some jurors may have relied on one act or incident and some
another, resulting in a lack of unanimity on all of the elements necessary for a
valid conviction."3 Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411.
The multiple acts instruction applies only when the State fails to "elect the
act upon which it will rely for conviction." Petrich, 101 Wash.2d at 572; see also
11 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 4.25, note on use at 110
(3d ed. 2008) (WPIC) ("If there is evidence of multiple distinct occurrences of the
crime, but the prosecution elects to rely upon a specific occurrence to support a
conviction, then this Petrich instruction should not be used."). Our Supreme
Court recently clarified what constitutes a successful election by the State.
We have never held that the State's election of an act must
be ratified by the court or incorporated into the charging document
or jury instructions in order to be effective. On the contrary, and as
our use of the phrase "tell the jury" in Kitchen suggests, [110 Wn.2d
at 409] (emphasis added), an election can be made by the
prosecuting attorney in a verbal statement to the jury as long as the
prosecution "clearly identified] the act upon which" the charge in
question is based. State v. Thompson, 169 Wn. App. 436, 474-75,
290 P.3d 996 (2012) ("[b]ecause the State clearly identified the act
upon which the sexual motivation allegation was based" in its
closing argument, "no unanimity instruction was necessary");
compare, e.g., id., and In re Pers. Restraint of Delgado, 160 Wn.
App. 898, 902, 251 P.3d 899 (2011) (prosecutor '"clearly elected
... the criminal acts associated with the two counts during its
closing arguments'"),.. . with State v. Williams, 136 Wn. App. 486,
the record evidence could reasonably support a closing argument
where prosecutor "emphasized" one act over others but did not
3As the State emphasizes in its briefing, a unanimity instruction is not required if multiple
acts form a continuing courseofcriminal conduct. State v. Crane, 116 Wn.2d 315, 330, 804 P.2d
10 (1991). However, contrary to the State's assertion, the multiple acts at issue herein were not
part ofa continuing course ofconduct. Rather, they are the culmination oftwo—mutually
exclusive—versions of the incident in question. The officers testified that Crossland swung at
Phipps; Crossland testified that she poked Phipps in the chest—no one testified that both acts
occurred.
-5-
No. 74167-5-1/6
"expressly elect to rely only on" one act "in seeking the
conviction").[4]
State v. Carson, 184 Wn.2d 207, 227-28, 357 P.3d 1064 (2015).
When a trial court does not properly instruct on unanimity, the error is
harmless only if no rational trier of fact could have entertained a reasonable
doubt that each act sufficient to constitute the crime charged was proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 406.
Herein, Crossland contends that a unanimity instruction was required
because the jury was presented evidence of two acts that could have constituted
the crime charged—the testimony of the officers that Crossland "swung" at
Phipps and Crossland's testimony that she "poke[d]" Phipps in the chest. While it
is true that evidence of both of these acts was presented, and that either act
could have supported an assault in the third degree conviction,5 Crossland's
argument fails because the State elected to rely on the "swing" for the conviction.
As Crossland acknowledges, "in this case[,] the state only presented
evidence of a single act of assault—the swinging arm." Br. of Appellant at 8.
This was consistent with the State's argument throughout trial. The State called
only the two officers as witnesses, both of whom testified to the swing. There
4 In a related footnote, the court emphasized that "the State must not only discuss the
acts on which it is relying, it must in some way disclaim its intention to rely on otheracts." State
v. Carson. 184 Wn.2d 207, 228 n.15, 357 P.3d 1064 (2015).
5Even the chest poke could have supported a finding that Crossland assaulted Phipps.
The jury was instructed that:
[a]n assault is an intentional touching or striking of another person, with
unlawful force, that is harmful or offensive regardless of whether any physical
injury is done to the person. Atouching or striking or cutting or shooting is
offensive if the touching or striking or cutting or shooting would offend an ordinary
person who is not unduly sensitive.
Jury Instruction 6.
It is possible that an ordinary person would find itoffensive to be poked in the chest by
someone who is standing close to him and is "pretty upset" at the time.
No. 74167-5-1/7
was no mention of a chest poke, though Phipps did clarify that Crossland's swing
at him did not make contact with his chest.6 It was Crossland who, through her
own testimony, presented evidence of the second act of assault—the chest poke.
Similarly, in closing argument, the State "clearly identified" the act upon
which the assault charge was based. For example, the prosecutor argued, "[w]e
heard from Officer Phipps that while he was turning the defendant around she
turned back, was actually facing him, put her arm back and swung. While she
apparently missed, she did make contact and hit him in the right back side.
There's yourassault." (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the prosecutor asserted,
"[o]n the second time [that Phipps had to direct Crossland toward the patrol
vehicle] is when the assault occurred and that's herswinging at Officer Phipps."
(Emphasis added.)
In addition to relying solely on the swing as the basis for conviction, the
State disclaimed any reliance on the chest poke as the basis for conviction. The
State, in accordance with the officers' testimony, denied that the chest poke ever
occurred. It argued that Crossland's testimony to the contrary should not be
credited because she was motivated to fabricate a story to avoid conviction and,
apart from this, her story was unreliable because, as she admitted, she had been
drinking the night of the assault and was "buzzing pretty good."
6 Q Now, did she ever make any physical contact with your chest?
A No.
Q Would you agree that the area that would be described as your chest and the
area where she made contact are not the same thing?
A Correct.
Q This is kind of the top back of your shoulder; is that right?
A Yeah, I can agree with that.
7
No. 74167-5-1/8
In sum, by clearly identifying that the assault charge was based on the
swing, rather than the chest poke, the State made an election. Thus, no
unanimity instruction was constitutionally required.7
Ill
Crossland next contends that she was prevented from presenting her
theory of the case to the jury. This is so, she asserts, because the trial court
improperly refused to give the jury a voluntary intoxication instruction. We
disagree.
A voluntary intoxication defense allows the jury to consider evidence of
intoxication in determining whether the defendant acted with the intent required
to commit the crime.8 State v. Thomas, 123 Wn. App. 771, 781, 98 P.3d 1258
(2004). To obtain a voluntary intoxication instruction, a defendant must show (1)
that the crime charged has a particular mental state as an element, (2) that there
is substantial evidence of drinking, and (3) evidence that the drinking affected the
defendant's ability to acquire the mental state at issue. State v. Gabrvschak, 83
Wn. App. 249, 252, 921 P.2d 549 (1996). In other words, "the evidence must
reasonably and logically connect the defendant's intoxication with the asserted
inability to form the required level of culpability to commit the crime charged."
7 Crossland also contends that her counsel was ineffective for failing to request a
unanimity instruction. "Where the claim of ineffective assistance is based upon counsel's failure
to request a particular jury instruction, the defendant must show he was entitled to the instruction,
counsel's performance was deficient in failing to request it, and the failure to request the
instruction caused prejudice." State v. Thompson. 169 Wn. App. 436, 495, 290 P.3d 996 (2012).
Because we conclude that Crossland was not entitled to a unanimity instruction, her ineffective
assistance claim premised upon her attorney's failure to request the same fails.
8 See also RCW 9A. 16.090, which provides:
No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be
deemed less criminal by reason of his or her condition, but whenever the actual
existence of any particular mental state is a necessary element to constitute a
particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his or her intoxication may be
taken into consideration in determining such mental state.
-8-
No. 74167-5-1/9
Gabrvschak, 83 Wn. App. at 252-53. Because a person can be intoxicated and
still able to form a particular mental state or so intoxicated as to be unconscious,
somewhere between these extremes "is a point on the scale at which a rational
trier of fact can conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof with
respect to the required mental state." Gabrvschak, 83 Wn. App. at 254.
We review the trial court's determination that the facts of a case do not
support a requested instruction for abuse of discretion. State v. Walker, 136
Wn.2d 767, 771-72, 966 P.2d 883 (1998). Instructions are adequate if they allow
a party to argue its theory of the case and do not mislead the jury or misstate the
law. State v. Stevens, 158 Wn.2d 304, 308, 143 P.3d 817 (2006).
Herein, the trial court refused Crossland's proposed voluntary intoxication
instruction, ruling:
In this case there are a number of things here to show that
this instruction is not appropriate. Ms. Crossland did have fairly
good control of her mental faculties. She knew where she lived,
she knew she didn't live at that apartment. She was coherent
enough to make a decision not to drive. She knew that she was
being arrested. She knew that the officers were officers. Earlier
she knew that she needed to collect her things, which she did. She
testified that she remembers everything that happened. She says
that she didn't need help walking down the stairs. There's different
testimony but her testimony is that she didn't. And she leftthe
apartment voluntarily. All of those things indicate to me that a
voluntary intoxication instruction is not appropriate here.
Again, as the State has argued, evidence of being drunk is
not enough. There has to be substantially more and in this case it
simply is not there. So I'm not going to give that instruction.
The trial court's reasoning is supported by case law and the record. While
the evidence was undisputed that Crossland had been drinking the night that she
assaulted Phipps, the evidence also indicated that she was aware of her own
No. 74167-5-1/10
actions and the circumstances at hand. Moreover, there is no evidence "that
[s]he otherwise exhibited sufficient effects of the alcohol from which a rational
juror could logically and reasonably conclude that h[er] intoxication affected h[er]
ability to think and act in accord with the requisite mental state[]," Gabrvschak, 83
Wn. App. at 255, in this case, the specific intent to touch or strike Phipps. Under
these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the
voluntary intoxication instruction.
IV
Finally, Crossland contends that insufficient evidence supports her
conviction. This is so, she asserts, because the State failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that she acted with the specific intent to assault Phipps. Her
contention is unavailing.
The due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions require that
the government prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. Const, amend. XIV; Wash. Const, art. I, § 3; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466, 476-77, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). "[T]he critical
inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal
conviction must be ... to determine whether the record evidence could
reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). "[T]he
relevant question is 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." Jackson, 443 U.S.
10
No. 74167-5-1/11
at 319.
"The purpose of this standard of review is to ensure that the trial court fact
finder 'rationally appl[ied]' the constitutional standard required by the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows for conviction of a criminal
offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Rattana Keo
Phuong, 174 Wn. App. 494, 502, 299 P.3d 37 (2013) (alteration in original)
(quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 317-18), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1022 (2015).
This standard of review is also designed to ensure that the fact finder at trial
reached the "subjective state of near certitude of the guilt of the accused," as
required by the Fourteenth Amendment's proof beyond a reasonable doubt
standard. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 315.
A claim of evidentiary insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence
and all reasonable inferences from that evidence. State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537,
551, 238 P.3d 470 (2010). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence can be
equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
This court defers to the jury on questions of conflicting testimony, credibility of
witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Killingsworth, 166
Wn. App. 283, 287, 269 P.3d 1064 (2012).
To convict Crossland of assault in the third degree as charged, the State
was required to prove that she: "assaulted] a law enforcement officer or other
employee ofa law enforcement agency who was performing his or her official
duties at the time of the assault." Jury Instruction 4; accord RCW
9A.36.031(1)(g).
11
No. 74167-5-1/12
As provided in Jury Instruction 6, assault is defined as:
an intentional touching or striking of another person, with unlawful
force, that is harmful or offensive regardless of whether any
physical injury is done to the person. A touching or striking or
cutting or shooting is offensive ifthe touching or striking or cutting
or shooting would offend an ordinary person who is not unduly
sensitive.
Accord WPIC 35.50.
As provided in Jury Instruction 7, for the element of intent, the State was
required to prove that Crossland acted "with the objective or purpose to
accomplish a result that constitutes a crime." Accord RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a);
WPIC 10.01.
The evidence adduced herein showed that, when Phipps grabbed
Crossland's shoulder for the second time, in order to direct her away from the
apartment and toward his patrol car, she responded by using her whole body to
forcefully swing her right arm at his head and that, despite Phipp's block,
Crossland's arm made contact with the top of his shoulder.9 Moreover, both
officers testified that they perceived her actions to be intentional. Phipps testified
that "striking" him appeared to be the purpose of her actions. When asked
whether it was possible that Crossland was "just simply turning around," Phipps
responded, "It happened too fast for her justturning around It was under
power." It appeared to Phipps to be "an intentional punch" done out ofanger.
Lowrey also testified that Crossland's "strike" appeared to be intentional. He
9Crossland now claims that, regardless of whethershe made contact with Phipps, she
was only trying to free herself from him, not to strike him, and, thus, there was insufficient
evidence that she specifically intended to assault him. Crossland's theory on appeal is contrary
to the record. At trial, neither Crossland, nor anyone else, ever mentioned that she was trying to
free herself from Phipps. Instead, Crossland adamantly denied swinging her arm at Phipps—
under any circumstances or with any motivation. Crossland's hypothetical is entirely outside the
record on appeal.
-12-
No. 74167-5-1/13
described her swing as a "haymaker" and "kind of a wild punch." He also
described her demeanor as "[hysterical, volatile, . . . upset and irrational."
When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the foregoing
evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Crossland acted with the
specific intent to assault Phipps when she swung her arm toward his head.
Affirmed. __
^
We concur
13-