FILED JUNE 28, 2018 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. 33910-6-III ) (consolidated with Respondent, ) No. 33932-7-III) ) v. ) ) ADAM S. JENNINGS, ) ) Appellant. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN WAYNE JENNINGS, ) ) Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — John Jennings appeals his convictions for first degree
murder and delivery of a firearm to an ineligible person. Adam Jennings, John’s son,
appeals his convictions for first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm.
Both men argue that insufficient evidence supports their convictions, their right to No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
conflict-free counsel was violated, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments,
and cumulative error. We reverse John’s conviction for delivery of a firearm to an
ineligible person, but otherwise affirm all convictions.
FACTS
On September 2, 2013, Michael Carrigan was shot and killed while hunting in
northern Okanogan County. This appeal involves the murder trial for his death.
On November 18, 2013, the State charged John and Adam Jennings with
premeditated first degree murder, each carrying a firearm enhancement. The State also
charged John with unlawful delivery of a firearm to an ineligible person and Adam with
unlawful possession of a firearm. On November 19, 2015, Adam stipulated he was
convicted of a serious offense and thus ineligible to possess or control a firearm. The
following facts were presented at the Jennings’s joint jury trial.
1. TRIAL TESTIMONY AND VERDICT
George Stover, a family member and longtime hunting partner of Mr. Carrigan,
was first to testify. In September 2013, Mr. Stover went grouse hunting and deer scouting
in a small group: himself, Mr. Carrigan, and Mr. Carrigan’s brother. They drove six
hours to the Pontiac Ridge area in northeastern Okanogan County and stayed in a cabin
there. Mr. Stover and Mr. Carrigan went out to hunt and scout in their vehicle. Around
2 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
7:00 p.m. that evening, about one mile from their cabin, they passed by Cow Camp Road,
and Mr. Carrigan saw a grouse in a large meadow. He stopped the car, walked into the
meadow, and shot at the grouse. He fired one shot, the grouse began to fly away, and he
then fired a second shot. Mr. Stover stayed in the truck.
Almost immediately after Mr. Carrigan’s second shot, Mr. Stover heard a gunshot
from a cabin behind him. Mr. Carrigan was hit by the gunshot and fell to the ground. Mr.
Stover looked at the cabin but did not see the shooter. He stayed in the truck. Mr.
Carrigan began to get up and walk back to the truck. Another shot was fired from the
cabin. That shot also hit Mr. Carrigan. He dropped to his knees and rolled onto his back.
Mr. Stover drove away to get help, sitting as far back in his truck as possible when he
drove past the cabin. When Mr. Stover came back with law enforcement, he helped
officers find Mr. Carrigan in the meadow. Mr. Carrigan was dead.
Around 8:30 p.m., officers using a loudspeaker directed anyone in the cabin to
come out. John and Adam came out. Officers saw no evidence of any other people near
the field.
Directly after coming out of the house, and in response to law enforcement’s
questions, John told officers that he was making tea when he heard the shots and got on
3 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
the floor. He also told officers there were a number of firearms in the cabin, some of
which were locked up, and that his son had pistols by his bed.
An officer arrested Adam on an outstanding warrant for failing to appear for
driving with a suspended license. Officers took John to a motel for the night. To
preserve the scene, officers stayed on site until the next morning, until roughly 6:30 a.m.
The Jennings’s cabin, including the surrounding property, was searched on
September 3, 2013. One of the two bedrooms in the cabin was identified as Adam’s
because it contained his clothing and medication. Adam’s bedroom window had a clear
line of sight to where Mr. Carrigan’s body had been found, 134 yards away. Additionally,
officers found binoculars on a plastic barrel by Adam’s open bedroom window and a box
of CCI Stinger .22 ammunition nearby. The box of ammunition had both modified and
unmodified bullets. A number of speed loaders were also found in Adam’s bedroom,
loaded with .22 ammunition. The base of the window had a number of marks or scrapes
on it. The marks or scrapes were consistent with a rifle or shotgun having been fired
while resting on the base of the window.
Later that day, law enforcement interviewed John at the motel. John stated that at
the time of the murder, he and Adam were inside the cabin after unloading firewood.
John said he was making tea when he heard the gunshots, and they immediately got on the
4 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
floor. He explained that it was safer on the ground because they had taken precautions to
keep people off their property; they stacked firewood as a barricade and stretched out
1,300 feet of barbed wire along one side of the property. He explained that because of the
barricades, a person from the Cow Camp Road side of their property would have to come
around the barricades and, “‘it would still leave [them] a lot of time to, you know, yell
and scream at people.’” III-B Report of Proceedings (RP) (Nov. 18, 2015) at 699. When
asked about the guns in the cabin, John told law enforcement that all the guns in the cabin
were his and that they were all registered to him, or unregistered and bought from stores.
When asked about his son’s gun preferences, John explained that “‘he carries pretty much
what I carry. It’s a .22 pistol.’” Id. at 712. John said a .22 rifle had been stolen years
earlier, and he tried to report it to the police.1 John also said that he was legally blind in
one eye—so if he uses a long gun, he needs a scope. Seven of the firearms recovered
from the cabin were registered to John but many firearms were unregistered.
On September 4, 2013, law enforcement interviewed Adam. Adam said that he
had unloaded firewood with his father and was rolling a cigarette when he heard the
gunshots. He said he then dropped to the ground and heard a vehicle drive away. He
denied that he or his father shot Mr. Carrigan.
1 An officer testified that he reviewed records and could not find any such report.
5 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
Law enforcement executed another search warrant on November 19, 2013. Arrest
warrants for John and Adam were executed the same day.
The searches revealed targets set up around the property. The targets were placed
at varying distances and heights. All targets faced the cabin, so a person standing at the
cabin would be facing the targets. John had earlier told officers that the targets had not
been used in a long time. John’s statement was inconsistent with the fresh, unweathered
holes through many of the targets. There were thousands of holes in the targets and trees
surrounding them. Many holes were indicative of shots from a .22 firearm.
During the autopsy, the medical examiner recovered a bullet near Mr. Carrigan’s
heart. The bullet was consistent with a .22 rifle bullet, specifically a CCI Stinger bullet.
The bullet was damaged, making identification of the gun that fired it more difficult.
Washington State Patrol firearm examiners tested many of the guns recovered
from the cabin, but none were conclusively the firearm that fired the fatal shot. The
results of one firearm recovered from the cabin, a .22 caliber High Standard revolver,
were inconclusive. The revolver had some similarities—for example, the revolver could
penetrate a body at 150 yards and the distance from the cabin to Mr. Carrigan’s body was
134 yards. A firearm examiner testified that the revolver could have fired the recovered
bullet.
6 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
Bonnie Blasingame-Scott testified about a conversation she had with John on
August 31, 2013, two days prior to the shooting. Ms. Blasingame-Scott worked at the
local Chesaw Mercantile. Ms. Blasingame-Scott had only met Adam and John as
customers at the store. They placed bulk orders about once per month at the mercantile.
Two days before the shooting, John and Adam came into the store. Some locals were
having a “light-hearted” conversation about the upcoming hunting season and how
hunters were a pain. IV RP (Nov. 19, 2015) at 843. Ms. Blasingame-Scott commented
that she puts ribbons around the neck of her livestock so hunters do not shoot them. John
then said, “‘If any hunters come on my property we’ll shoot them.’” Id. John did not
laugh. Adam nodded along to his father’s statement. John then pulled back his coat to
show a compact firearm under his long coat. The joking about hunters did not resume
after John’s statement.
After the five-day trial, the jury found John and Adam guilty of premeditated first
degree murder, each with a firearm enhancement. The jury also found John guilty of
unlawful delivery of a firearm to an ineligible person, and Adam guilty of unlawful
possession of a firearm.
7 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
2. CONFLICT-FREE COUNSEL
The Jennings’s claim that they were denied conflict-free counsel is based on a
purported conflict of interest between Melissa MacDougall, who represented Adam, and
Michael Prince, who assisted in John’s representation. We review what each attorney
did, and who they represented throughout the lower court proceeding.
In December 2013, Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Prince were law partners. That
month, Ms. MacDougall, Mr. Prince, and a third attorney with the firm signed a notice of
appearance on behalf of Adam. Thereafter, Mr. Prince occasionally appeared in court on
ministerial matters for Adam.
The trial court understood Mr. Prince’s limited role. During a status conference
hearing, the trial court told Adam that he was represented only by Ms. MacDougall, but
that Mr. Prince occasionally covered her cases as her law partner. After explaining this,
the trial court asked, “And so, you understand what Mr. Prince is doing today?”
RP (Dec. 15, 2014—Status Conference Re: Adam) at 71. Adam replied, “Yes, Your
Honor.” Id. Additionally, Ms. MacDougall specifically told the trial court in 2014 that
she was doing Adam’s case by herself and that Mr. Prince was not working on Adam’s
case.
8 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
On June 22, 2015, Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Prince ended their legal partnership
with a formal agreement. Ms. MacDougall continued as counsel for Adam.
In September 2015, three months after their law partnership ended, Mr. Prince
began assisting John’s attorney, Myles Johnson. That month, Mr. Prince filed a motion
for trial continuance. Prior to hearing the motion, the trial court noted, “Ms. MacDougall
represents Adam Jennings, she’s here. Mr. Prince, you represent John Jennings.” RP
(Sept. 22, 2015—Motion Hearing) at 179. During the hearing, Mr. Prince explained to
the court:
Now, I guess I let the Court know . . . obviously I have been around . . . during the pendency of these cases. Even though my name originally appeared with Ms. MacDougall on her case, I never put in any work on that case, that—I was working in District Court at that time.[2] But I guess I let the Court know that I am aware of a lot of what’s gone on in these cases and so I feel that I could be up to speed very quickly.
Id. at 189 (emphasis added).
During trial, Ms. MacDougall represented Adam, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prince
were John’s attorneys. The record shows that Mr. Johnson had the lead role at trial, while
2 The record strongly implies that when Adam was arrested in September 2013, Mr. Prince represented Adam on the district court driving while license suspended matter. As reflected by the italicized comment, Mr. Prince was not working in district court in September 2015. We infer from this that Mr. Prince was no longer representing Adam in the district court matter when Mr. Prince began representing John in September 2015.
9 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
Mr. Prince had a subordinate role. Mr. Prince’s trial participation was limited to
preparing jury instructions and questioning ballistics witnesses.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, John and Adam raise five issues. We address them in the order raised
in their briefs.
1. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
John challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of delivery of a
firearm to an ineligible person. John and Adam both challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence for their convictions for premeditated first degree murder.
A defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires the reviewing
court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine “whether
any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 428, 173 P.3d 245 (2007). “A claim
of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably
can be drawn therefrom.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
“[A]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence [are] interpreted most strongly against the
defendant.” Id. “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, circumstantial evidence
10 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
is not to be considered any less reliable than direct evidence.” State v. Delmarter, 94
Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
Neither John nor Adam objected to the giving of any jury instruction or excepted
to the failure to give any instruction. Therefore, the court’s instructions to the jury
constitute the law of the case, and we review the sufficiency of the evidence based on the
elements contained in the to-convict instructions. State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 101-
02, 954 P.2d 900 (1998).
Delivery of a firearm to an ineligible person—John
RCW 9.41.080 provides in relevant part:
No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony . . . .
(Emphasis added).
The trial court’s to-convict instruction on this count provided, in relevant part:
To convict the defendant, John Jennings, of the crime of unlawful delivery of a firearm, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about September 2, 2013, the defendant delivered a firearm to Adam Jennings; (2) That the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that Adam Jennings was ineligible to possess a firearm because he was previously convicted in this state or elsewhere of a serious offense; and (3) That the delivery occurred in the State of Washington.
11 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
CP (No. 33910-6-III, Adam) at 51 (emphasis added).
John primarily challenges element 1, that he “delivered” a firearm to his son.
Neither chapter 9.41 RCW nor decisional law defines “delivered” in this context. Our
objective when interpreting a statute is to determine the legislature’s intent. State v.
Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815, 820, 239 P.3d 354 (2010). The surest indication of such intent is
the language used by the legislature; so if the language is plain on its face, we give effect
to that plain meaning. Id. In determining the plain meaning of a provision, we look to
the statutory text, related statutory provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. Id.
With respect to the statutory text, the parties have offered differing definitions of
“deliver.” We note that some definitions require an actual handing over of an item, while
others are less stringent and require as little as permissive use. Because the term
“deliver” is susceptible to more than one meaning, the statutory text does not assist us in
our plain meaning analysis. With respect to related provisions or statutory scheme, there
is nothing that assists our analysis.
When there is no plain meaning of a provision, the statute is ambiguous; in that
event, we may resort to legislative history, relevant case law, and rules of statutory
construction in discerning legislative intent. Id. at 820.
12 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
With respect to legislative history, neither the parties nor we have found any that
assist in our analysis. With respect to relevant case law, the State cites cases construing
former RCW 69.50.101(f) (2013), which defines “deliver” in the context of the unlawful
delivery of controlled substances. There, the statute itself defines “delivery” as including
the “constructive transfer from one person to another.” Id. We reject the State’s
invitation to apply cases that construe former RCW 69.50.101(f). Those cases construe a
statute that explicitly includes both actual and constructive delivery; here, the statute does
not explicitly include constructive delivery.
Having exhausted these primary tools of statutory construction, we are left with
applying the rule of lenity. The rule ensures fair warning by resolving ambiguity in a
criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered. United States v. Lanier,
520 U.S. 259, 266, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 137 L. Ed. 2d 432 (1997); State v. Bradshaw, 3 Wn.
App. 2d 187, 195, 414 P.3d 1148 (2018). When we must choose between two readings of
what conduct the legislature has made a crime, we should require, before we chose the
harsher alternative, that the legislature speak in clear and definite language. State v.
Weatherwax, 188 Wn.2d 139, 155, 392 P.3d 1054 (2017).
Applying the rule of lenity, this author construes “deliver” narrowly to require the
actual physical delivery of a firearm. This narrow definition does not criminalize the
13 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
mere permitting of another to use one’s firearm. Had the legislature intended to
criminalize such passive conduct, it could have by saying so. It did not.
We note that circumstantial evidence is entitled to as much weight as direct
evidence. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d at 638. Here, John purchased numerous guns and kept
them unlocked in his cabin. Also, Adam had a key to John’s gun safe, and John admitted
that Adam used his guns. From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact might find beyond
a reasonable doubt that John actually delivered at least one firearm to Adam at some time.
But there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that John actually delivered a
firearm to Adam on or about September 2, 2013. The State was required to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt this temporal component of the to-convict instruction. State v. Jensen,
125 Wn. App. 319, 325-26, 104 P.3d 717 (2005).3 For this reason, a majority of the panel
concludes that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on this element, and we
reverse John’s conviction on this particular count.
3 The dissent cites State v. Hayes, 81 Wn. App. 425, 432-33, 914 P.2d 788 (1996) for the proposition that the State need not prove the temporal component of the jury instruction unless the defendant raised an alibi defense at trial. Hayes does not stand for that proposition. In Hayes, the defendant did not argue the Hickman issue on appeal, i.e., that the State failed to prove the temporal component of the jury instruction. Instead, the defendant argued that the State failed to prove the temporal component in the “charging period.” Id. at 432. That is not the issue here.
14 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
Premeditated First Degree Murder—John and Adam
John and Adam tacitly concede the State produced sufficient evidence that
someone from inside the cabin shot Mr. Carrigan on September 2, 2013. They contend
that there was insufficient evidence that either acted as a principal and there was
insufficient evidence that the other assisted or was ready to assist the principal. Their
arguments require us to review the law of criminal accomplice liability.
A person is an accomplice to a crime if “[w]ith knowledge that it will promote or
facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she . . . encourages . . . another person to
commit [the crime] or . . . [a]ids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or
committing [the crime].” RCW 9A.08.020(3). “[A] jury is not required to determine
which participant acted as a principal and which participant acted as an accomplice.” In
re Pers. Restraint of Hegney, 138 Wn. App. 511, 524, 158 P.3d 1193 (2007). Instead,
“[t]he jury need only conclude unanimously that both the principal and accomplice
participated in the crime.” Id. It does not matter if some jurors believed that the
defendant fired the fatal shot, while others believed that the defendant was simply an
accomplice. State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 104, 804 P.2d 577 (1991). This is because
“[a]ccomplice liability represents a legislative decision that one who participates in a
crime is guilty as a principal, regardless of the degree of the participation.” Id.
15 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
More particular to the situation here:
In this state when it cannot be determined which of two defendants actually committed a crime, and which one encouraged or counseled, it is not necessary to establish the role of each. It is sufficient if there is a showing that each defendant was involved in the commission of the crime, having committed at least one overt act . . . .
State v. Baylor, 17 Wn. App. 616, 618, 565 P.2d 99 (1977).
Here, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that John or Adam was the shooter and that the other was involved in
the crime’s commission. First, the evidence sufficiently establishes beyond a reasonable
doubt that either John or Adam was the shooter. Mr. Carrigan was shot by a .22 Stinger
round similar to the .22 Stingers found in Adam’s bedroom, Adam’s bedroom window
had a clear view to where Mr. Carrigan was shot, and Mr. Carrigan was killed within
range of at least one of the .22 guns found in Adam’s bedroom.
Second, sufficient evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that both men were
involved in the commission of the crime. The men had barricaded the cabin with
firewood, placed targets on the property to practice shooting from the cabin itself, and had
a stockpile of guns and ammunition inside the cabin. Two days before the shooting, John
told Ms. Blasingame-Scott at the mercantile, “‘If any hunters come on my property we’ll
shoot them.’” IV RP (Nov. 19, 2015) at 843 (emphasis added). In agreement, Adam
16 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
nodded as his father revealed his compact firearm to the locals. Two days later, a hunter
appeared on or near John’s property and either John or Adam shot and killed the hunter.
Because they had both prepared for the event described by John, affirmed by Adam, and
two days later performed by one of them, we conclude that the State presented sufficient
evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that both were involved in committing the
crime, whether as a principal or as an accomplice.
2. RIGHT TO CONFLICT-FREE COUNSEL
John and Adam argue that their attorneys, Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Prince, had
conflicts of interest that violated their Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
right to conflict-free counsel.
The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” This right
includes the right to the assistance of a conflict-free attorney. State v. Dhaliwal, 150
Wn.2d 559, 566, 79 P.3d 432 (2003).
In Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 477, 98 S. Ct. 1173, 55 L. Ed. 2d 426
(1978), one defense attorney represented three codefendants. The defense attorney timely
informed the trial court of conflicts of interest requiring separate counsel, but the trial
court refused to consider appointing separate counsel. Id. The United States Supreme
17 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
Court held that state trial courts are required to investigate timely objections to multiple
representation. Id. at 490-91. In a subsequent case, Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335,
346-47, 100 S. Ct. 1708, 64 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1980), the Supreme Court clarified that
“[a]bsent special circumstances, . . . trial courts may assume either that multiple
representation entails no conflict or that the lawyer and his clients knowingly accept such
risk of conflict as may exist.” Thus, reversal is not required if a trial court knows of a
potential conflict but fails to inquire when no objection is raised. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d at
571. The Supreme Court in Sullivan explained, “‘An attorney representing two
defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to
determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a
trial.’” Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 347 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Holloway,
435 U.S. at 485).
Neither defendant advised the trial court of the purported conflict of interest
We first must determine if anyone advised the trial court of a purported conflict of
interest between Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Prince. We note that no attorney brought such
an issue before the trial court. Both John and Adam cite a May 2015 letter written by
John to the trial court. For the benefit of the reader, we have edited the letter to correct
more than a dozen spelling errors:
18 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
I am writing to request an attorney ad litem be appointed to research this case and offer a friend of the court brief. I believe this is needed to ensure a fair trial if need be. I further believe that a conflict of interest exists between the needs of myself and my son and our court appointed attorneys. It would seem to me our attorneys have their own agenda and are not wanting to zealously defend us. Furthermore I believe Ms. MacDougall has only her political agenda in mind and Mr. Blount can’t think of anything but his future personal financial affluence.
CP (No. 33932-7-III, John) at 220.
This letter did not advise the trial court of a purported conflict of interest between
Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Prince. The letter instead advised the trial court of a purported
conflict of interest between Ms. MacDougall and John’s former attorney, Nicholas
Blount.
No showing that counsel had a conflict that adversely impacted performance
When a defendant fails to advise the trial court of a purported conflict of interest, a
defendant is not entitled to relief unless the defendant can show that counsel had a
conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d at 569.
Here, Mr. Prince did not participate in John’s defense until September 2015. By
that time, he and Ms. MacDougall no longer were law partners, and his district court
representation of Adam had concluded. Mr. Prince’s participation in John’s felony
19 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
defense was very limited. From September 2015 through trial, Mr. Prince represented
John. But Mr. Prince’s role was secondary to John’s primary counsel, Mr. Johnson.
The Jennings argue that Mr. Prince likely had a role in the decision to pursue a
unified defense rather than having one defendant point to the other as the principal. Their
argument belies the fact that Mr. Prince’s involvement in Adam’s defense was very
minimal and his later involvement with John’s defense was secondary, assisting John’s
primary counsel. There is no evidence, apart from pure speculation, that Mr. Prince
played a role in deciding defense strategy. Rather, primary counsel for each defendant,
Ms. MacDougall and Mr. Johnson, likely decided defense strategy.
In his reply brief, John argues for the first time that Mr. Prince was precluded by
RPC 1.9 from representing him. RPC 1.9 sets forth an attorney’s duties to a former
client. First, we will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief.
FPA Crescent Assocs., LLC v. Jamie’s, LLC, 190 Wn. App. 666, 679, 360 P.3d 934
(2015). Second, John has no standing to assert a purported violation of the RPC, which
concerns duties to Adam, a former client. Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condo.
Ass’n, 2011 WI 36, 333 Wis. 2d 402, 438, 797 N.W.2d 789.
20 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
3. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIM
Adam and John argue that the prosecutor made various statements during closing
arguments that constitute sufficient misconduct to warrant a new trial.
To succeed on their prosecutorial misconduct claims, Adam and John have the
burden to establish the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and prejudicial. In re Pers.
Restraint of Sandoval, 189 Wn.2d 811, 821, 408 P.3d 675 (2018). “To be prejudicial, a
substantial likelihood must exist that the misconduct affected the jury’s verdict.” State v.
Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 331, 290 P.3d 43 (2012).
Additionally, in closing argument, a prosecutor “has wide latitude to argue
reasonable inferences from the evidence.” State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 448, 258
P.3d 43 (2011). However, a prosecutor may not “comment on the lack of defense
evidence because the defendant has no duty to present evidence [and] the State bears the
whole burden of proving each element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Cleveland, 58 Wn. App. 634, 647, 794 P.2d 546 (1990).
First claim of misconduct: referring to John and Adam jointly
John complains that the prosecutor, during closing, often referred to Adam and
him collectively, rather than individually, thus confusing the jury on whether sufficient
evidence was presented to convict either.
21 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
The State charged both John and Adam as principal or accomplice for the murder
of Mr. Carrigan. The State’s references to “they” or “them” was consistent with the
State’s theory and argument that both participated and were involved in the murder. The
prosecutor had wide latitude to make that argument. The argument is also consistent with
the Washington rule that the jury does not have to decide which of two codefendants
pulled the trigger; only that both were involved in the crime. Hegney, 138 Wn. App. at
524.
As discussed above, there was substantial evidence that both John and Adam
participated in killing Mr. Carrigan, and this evidence permitted a finding of accomplice
liability. We conclude that the prosecutor’s arguments were based on the evidence and
not improper. Similarly, the prosecutor was not required to argue which defendant, John
or Adam, fired the lethal shot.
Second claim of misconduct: speculation about missing gun
John and Adam argue that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that
they hid the murder weapon before law enforcement arrived. They assert that the
prosecutor’s argument was not based on the evidence and violated the trial court’s order
in limine. We disagree.
22 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
There were approximately 90 minutes between when Mr. Carrigan was shot and
when law enforcement arrived at the Jennings’s cabin. During the search of the
Jennings’s cabin, law enforcement found sawed-off gun barrels, but did not find the
sawed-off shotgun bases. The prosecutor explained during motions in limine that he
hoped the jury would draw the inference that Adam and John may have hidden guns in
that 90 minutes. The trial court excluded “officer opinion or prosecutorial comments, key
word there, opinion, about the defendants hiding guns. . . . Facts yes, opinions no.” RP
(Nov. 13, 2015—Defense Motions in Limine) at 400.
At trial, the jury heard that law enforcement found sawed-off shotgun barrels but
not the bases. During closing, the prosecutor discussed this and then remarked:
The argument that, “Well, why do these other guns matter?” Well, they matter for other counts directly. But they matter for this count, the murder count, because in fact they show the defendants not only had multiple weapons, and all the ammunition and everything else that went along with that, but they also—manipulated and—got rid of some weapons—very clearly. That’s why it matters.
VI RP (Nov. 23, 2015) at 1121 (emphasis added).
The comment “got rid of some weapons” was a permissible inference based on the
evidence presented at trial. This statement is permissible in the wide latitude given to
prosecutors to argue inferences from the evidence in closing arguments.
23 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
If the prosecutor’s argument violated the order in limine, it was incumbent on the
Jennings to object. They did not. Their failure to object precludes our review of the
purported violation of the order in limine. State v. Sullivan, 69 Wn. App. 167, 171-73,
847 P.2d 953 (1993).
Third claim of misconduct: remark implying that the defendants had an obligation to testify and present evidence
John and Adam argue that the prosecutor made an improper remark that shifted the
burden of proof to them and impacted their constitutional right to remain silent. The
prosecutor remarked:
The defendants—had the opportunity to have witnesses presented, have you all consider the evidence, to weigh—you have reasonable doubt whether they committed the murder. None of which were offered (inaudible).
VI RP (Nov. 23, 2015) at 1131 (emphasis added).
This remark was improper. In State v. Dixon, 150 Wn. App. 46, 55, 207 P.3d 459
(2009), we held that a prosecutor may not comment about a defendant’s failure to call a
witness if the comment would infringe on the defendant’s right to remain silent. Here,
the only uncalled witnesses to the shooting were the defendants. For this reason, the
remark was improper.
24 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
The remark was improper for an additional reason. The remark implied that the
defendants had an obligation to present evidence when no such obligation exists.
Cleveland, 58 Wn. App. at 647.
The Jennings did not object to the prosecutor’s improper remark. The “‘failure to
object to an improper remark constitutes a waiver of error unless the remark is so flagrant
and ill intentioned that it causes an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have
been neutralized by an admonition to the jury.’” Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443 (quoting
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994)). Thus, when a defendant did
not object below, relief can be granted only if the error was so egregious that it was
beyond cure by the trial judge. State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 661, 790 P.2d 610 (1990);
State v. Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d 504, 507, 755 P.2d 174 (1988).
Here, the prosecutor did not repeat his improper remark. We find this important in
determining that the remark was not flagrant or ill-intentioned. Also, had John or Adam
objected, the trial court would have sustained the objection and could have instructed the
jury that the State had the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and
because of this, the Jennings had no obligation to present any witnesses or evidence. We
conclude that the prosecutor’s remark, although improper, was not sufficiently egregious
that it could not have been cured by a proper instruction.
25 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
4. CUMULATIVE ERROR CLAIM
Adam and John argue that cumulative errors require reversal of both murder
convictions. “The cumulative error doctrine applies when several trial errors occurred
and none alone warrants reversal but the combined errors effectively denied the defendant
a fair trial.” State v. Jackson, 150 Wn. App. 877, 889, 209 P.3d 553 (2009). “The
defendant bears the burden of proving an accumulation of error of sufficient magnitude
that retrial is necessary.” State v. Yarbrough, 151 Wn. App. 66, 98, 210 P.3d 1029 (2009)
(citing In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 332, 868 P.2d 835, 870 P.2d 964
(1994)). We have concluded that the only error relative to the murder convictions was the
prosecutor’s one improper remark during closing and that error was waived by a lack of
objection. For this reason, there is no cumulative error.
5. APPELLATE COSTS
Adam asks the panel to exercise its discretion to waive costs on appeal. In
accordance with RAP 14.2, we defer the decision of appellate costs to our court
commissioner or clerk/administrator.
26 No. 33910-6-III; No. 33932-7-III State v. Adam Jennings; State v. John Jennings
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
In a statement of additional grounds for review, Adam raises a general claim of
innocence. Because the claim contains no legal argument, his statement is insufficient for
review. RAP 10. lO(c).
CONCLUSION
We reverse John's conviction for delivery of a firearm to an ineligible person and
remand for resentencing. We otherwise affirm the convict~ons.
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.
Lawrence-B~rrey, CJ.
I CONCUR:
27 No. 33910-6-111 (consolidated w/ 33932-7-111)
SIDDOWAY, J. (dissenting in part)- Jurors found John Jennings guilty of a
violation ofRCW 9.41.080, which provides that "[n]o person may deliver a firearm to
any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW
9.41.040 to possess a firearm." They were persuaded that John delivered a firearm to
Adam, whom they were informed, by stipulation, was ineligible to possess one. The
State's evidence was sufficient. I would affirm.
The State's evidence went beyond demonstrating that Adam used a firearm
belonging to his father. The State presented evidence from which jurors could conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that Adam had his father's standing permission to use his
father's firearms whenever he wanted, and that he regularly did use them. Some of the
firearms were locked up. The State proved that a key to the safe was found in Adams' s
room both times the cabin was searched. This, and the evidence that Adam played a role
in the murder of Michael Carrigan, is substantial evidence of a violation of RCW
9.41.080 on or about the September 2, 2013 date of the murder.
The majority's author errs by applying the rule of lenity. "The rule of lenity is the
last, not the first, resort when a criminal statute must be construed." City of Seattle v.
Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d 451,469,219 P.3d 686 (2009) (Madsen, J., concurring). "To
determine whether to apply the rule, the court must first make a 'serious investigation' of
the language of the statute and its purpose, its context, related statutes, the statutory
scheme, and legislative history. It is improper to create or assume ambiguity and then No. 33910-6-III (consol. w/ 33932-7-III) State v Jennings (Dissent in part)
tum to the rule of lenity to resolve it." Id. (quoting Lawrence M. Solan, Law, Language,
and Lenity, 40 WM. & MARYL. REV. 57, 115 (1998)).
In Burton v. Lehman, our Supreme Court construed the word "delivery" as used in
a different statute. It relied on "delivery's" dictionary definition as meaning"' [t]he
formal act of transferring something ... ; the giving or yielding possession or control of
something to another."' 153 Wn.2d 416,424, 103 P.3d 1230 (2005) (quoting BLACK'S
LAW DICTIONARY 461 (8th ed. 2004)). The court recognized that "the law recognizes
that delivery may be actual, constructive, or symbolic," id., even though not every
meaning of "delivery" may be reasonable in a particular context.
In many contexts, multiple meanings of "deliver" or "delivery" are recognized as
reasonable. One example is the word's use in a criminal context, the Uniform Controlled
Substances Act, chapter 69.50 RCW, which criminalizes the actual or constructive
transfer ("delivery") of controlled substances. See RCW 69.50.10 l(g). Another is the
common law of gifts, which recognizes "delivery" as an essential element of a completed
gift, but does not require proof of hand delivery. E.g., In re Marriage of Zier, 136 Wn.
App. 40, 47, 147 P.3d 624 (2006) (what constitutes "delivery" depends on the nature of
the property and the attendant circumstances). A third is the common law of insurance,
which requires delivery of a policy but not hand delivery. E.g., Frye v. Prudential Ins.
Co. ofAm., 157 Wash. 88, 90-91, 288 P. 262 (1930) ("Delivery" of an insurance policy
may be actual or constructive, with certain mailings of a policy qualifying as delivery.).
2 No. 33910-6-III (consol. w/ 33932-7-III) State v Jennings (Dissent in part)
Before resorting to the rule of lenity, then, the issue is whether it is reasonable to construe
RCW 9 .41.080 as using "deliver" in its multiple accepted senses, and therefore
unreasonable to arbitrarily rule out one accepted meaning of the word.
In Bernethy v. Walt Failor 's, Inc., our Supreme Court described former RCW
9.41.080 (1982) as, "at a minimum, reflect[ing] a strong public policy in our state that
certain people should not be provided with dangerous weapons." 97 Wn.2d 929, 933,
653 P.2d 280 (1982) (emphasis added). One can "provide [a person] with" dangerous
weapons by making firearms accessible and granting standing permission to use them. In
fact, John's standing permission was a particularly effective way of providing Adam with
dangerous weapons, since John did not have to be present and available to place a firearm
in Adam's hands. Given the purpose ofRCW 9.41.080, the dictionary definition of
"delivery" as "yielding possession or control ... to another" is every bit as reasonable a
construction as is "giving possession or control" in the sense of physically handing a
firearm to another.
No case law is cited nor is any principled reason offered for Adams's argument
that physically handing something to another is the "narrow" construction of "deliver"
and therefore appropriate. Pointing out that RCW 9 .41.080 does not define "deliver" as
including "constructive" delivery is not persuasive, since the word is not defined as
limited to "actual" delivery, either. Both are accepted meanings of the unmodified word
"deliver."
3 No. 33910-6-III (consol. w/ 33932-7-III) State v Jennings (Dissent in part)
Adams' s construction of "deliver" as having only one of its accepted meanings,
but not another, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Because the meaning he proposes is
merely a possible meaning but not a reasonable one given the purpose of the statute,
RCW 9.41.080 is not ambiguous. The rul.e of lenity need not be applied. State v. McGee,
122 Wn.2d 783, 787, 864 P.2d 912 (1993).
The majority's decision to reverse John's conviction does not depend on Adam's
construction of "deliver," however. It depends instead on the asserted absence of
evidence that John delivered a firearm to Adam "on or about September 2, 2013."
Clerk's Papers (No. 33932-7-III, John) at 140-41. In my view, because John's delivery
of a weapon was ongoing, recurring whenever Adam acted on his father's standing
permission, there was sufficient evidence that Adam acted on that permission on or about
September 2, 2013. Alternatively, it is well settled that where time is not a material
element of the charged crime, the language "on or about" is sufficient to admit proof of
the act at any time within the statute of limitations, so long as there is no defense of alibi.
State v. Hayes, 81 Wn. App, 425, 432, 914 P.2d 788 (1996). In Hayes, the "on or about"
limitation appeared not only in the charging document, but also in the instructions to the
jury. See id. at 431 n.9.
For these reasons, I would affirm John's conviction of delivery of a firearm to an
ineligible person.
1 Siddoway, J.