In re Personal Restraint of Williams

In re the Matter of the Personal Restraint of CARRI DARLENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 77416-6-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

November 25, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITHDRAWING OPINION, AND SUBSTITUTING OPINION

The appellant, Carri Williams, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion filed on September 16, 2019. The respondent, State of Washington, has filed a response. The court has determined that the motion should be denied. However, the opinion should be withdrawn, and a substitute opinion filed. Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the opinion filed on September 16, 2019 is withdrawn; and it is further

ORDERED that a substitute opinion shall be filed.

ANDRUS, J.

Hana Williams, a teenage girl from Ethiopia, died in her adoptive family's backyard, the victim of physical abuse inflicted starvation, and hypothermia. A jury convicted Hana's mother, Carri Williams, ^[1] of homicide by abuse in connection with her death and with assault of a child in the first degree in connection with Carri's abuse of her adopted Ethiopian son, I.W.^[2] We affirmed Cam's convictions and sentence in State v. Carri Darlene Williams, No 71193-8-1 (Wash.Ct.App. Dec. 21, 2015) (unpublished) review denied. 185 Wn.2d 1036 (2016)^[3] (hereinafter C. Williams).

In this personal restraint petition, Carri challenges both the legal and evidentiary basis for her convictions as well as the adequacy of her trial and appellate counsel's representation. After a thorough consideration of the trial record, the parties' briefing, and oral argument, we deny her personal restraint petition.

FACTS

In the early hours of May 12, 2011, Carri telephoned her husband, Larry, as he drove home from his job at Boeing. Carri told him that she had found their teenage daughter, Hana, lying face down in the backyard, naked and unconscious. After instructing Carri to call 9-1-1, Larry raced home and helped perform CPR until the medics arrived and transported Hana to Skagit Valley Hospital. Hana was pronounced dead at 1:30 a.m. on May 12, 2011.

A subsequent investigation revealed that Carri and Larry routinely physically and psychologically punished Hana, then a young teen, and I.W., a 9-year-old hearing-impaired boy, both of whom they had adopted from Ethiopia in 2008.

Dr. Daniel Selove, the forensic pathologist who performed Hana's autopsy, noticed that Hana had visible injuries on her pelvis, elbows, knees, and calves; bruises on her knees, eyebrow and upper pelvis; and multiple impact marks on her thighs and calves. He determined that when she died, Hana suffered from severe malnutrition, with an abnormally thin body and protruding ribs and shoulder blades. Dr. Selove identified Hana's cause of death as hypothermia, with malnutrition and a bacterial infection in her stomach, h. pylori, ^[4] as contributing factors. Dr. Rebecca Wiester, a Board-certified physician in child abuse pediatrics with malnutrition and hypothermia expertise, confirmed that Hana died from hypothermia brought on by inflicted starvation.

When Child Protective Services (CPS) interviewed I.W. and the Williamses' seven biological children on May 24, 2011, the children revealed that Carri and Larry had regularly beaten I.W. and Hana, causing scars, had denied them food, had forced them to eat sandwiches soaked in water or eat frozen, uncooked vegetables while sitting outside on the back porch away from the family, and had forced Hana and I.W. to sleep in a locked closet or shower room. CPS removed all of the children from the home in July 2011.

On September 9, 2011, the State charged Carri and Larry with homicide by abuse under RCW9A.32.055 and the alternative crime of first degree manslaughter under RCW 9A.32.060 for the death of Hana, and assault of a child in the first degree under RCW 9A.36.120 for their mistreatment of I.W. On September 9, 2013, following a seven week jury trial, the jury found Carri guilty of all three charges.^[5]

On October 29, 2011, the trial court vacated Cam's manslaughter conviction on double jeopardy grounds, and it sentenced Carri to consecutive sentences of 320 months for the homicide by abuse and 123 months for the assault of I.W. We affirmed Cam's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. C. Williams, No. 71193-8-1, slip op. at2.^[6]

In this personal restraint petition, Carri challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to prove either homicide by abuse or manslaughter in the first degree; (2) the constitutionality of the homicide by abuse statute; (3) the prosecutor's statements during opening and closing argument; and the assistance of counsel she received (4) at trial and (5) on direct appeal.^[7]

ANALYSIS

An appellate court may grant relief to a petitioner who is under restraint and who can demonstrate his restraint is unlawful. RAP 16.4; In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 805, 792 P.2d 506 (1990). Restraint is unlawful when a conviction is obtained in violation of the United States Constitution or the laws of the state of Washington. RAP 16.4(c)(2).

Relief by way of a collateral challenge to a conviction is extraordinary and a petitioner must meet a high standard before this court will disturb an otherwise settled judgment. In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123, 132 267 P.3d 324 (2011). A petitioner has the burden of demonstrating error and, if the error is constitutional, actual and substantial prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of Sandoval, 189 Wn.2d 811, 821, 408 P.3d 675 (2018). If the error is not constitutional, the petitioner must show that the error represents a "fundamental defect . . . that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice." ]d. (quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501, 506, 301 P.3d 450 (2013)). Furthermore, a petitioner may not renew an issue that was raised and rejected on direct appeal unless the interests of justice require the issue to be reexamined. In re Pers. Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d 467, 473, 965 P.2d 593 (1998).

Claim 1: Conviction for Homicide by Abuse

Carri raises two challenges to her conviction for homicide by abuse. First, she argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove she was extremely indifferent to whether Hana lived or died or that she actually knew there was a substantial risk Hana could die from hypothermia. Second, she contends that the trial court erred in failing to define "extreme indifference to human life" for the jury in violation of article IV, section 16 of the Washington state constitution.

(a) Sufficiency of the Evidence

The due process clauses of both the state and federal constitutions require the State to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mau, 178 Wn.2d 308, 312, 308 P.3d 629 (2013). When a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. The evidence is sufficient when any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Baeza, 100 Wn.2d 487, 490, 670 P.2d 646 (1983).

Under RCW 9A.32.055:

A person is guilty of homicide by abuse if, under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, the person causes the death of a child or person under sixteen years of age . . . and the person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of said child [or] person under sixteen years of age.

The jury was instructed that in order to convict Carri of homicide by abuse, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) on or about May 12, 2011, Carri or her accomplice acted under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; (2) that Hana died as a result of her acts or the acts of an accomplice; (3) that Hana was under 16 years of age; (4) that Carri or her accomplice previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of Hana; and (5) any of the acts occurred in Washington.

1. Circumstances Manifesting an Extreme Indifference to Human Life

Extreme indifference to human life may be proved by evidence of "an aggravated form of recklessness" falling below a specific intent to kill. State v. Adams, 138 Wn.App. 36, 50, 155 P.3d 989 (2007) (quoting State v. Dunbar, 117 Wn.2d 587, 593, 817 P.2d 1360 (1991)). The State may prove this element by demonstrating that a defendant has engaged "in extremely reckless conduct that creates a grave risk of death." Id. at 50. The mens rea of homicide by abuse requires evidence that the defendant demonstrated indifference toward a particular victim, rather than to human life in general. State v. Edwards, 92 Wn.App. 156, 163, 961 P.2d 969 (1998). Evidence that a defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of assaulting a child is sufficient to demonstrate an extreme indifference to that child's life. Id. At 165.

We conclude that the State established that Carri acted under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to whether Hana lived or died, both in the months leading up to, and on the day of her death. At trial, I.W., who was 12 at the time of trial, and six of the Williamses' biological children, spanning in ages from 13 to over 18, described the circumstances under which Carri acted toward Hana preceding her death, from which a reasonable jury could conclude Carri placed Hana at risk of death and simply did not care whether she lived or died.^[8]

The Williams children described their parents' chosen methods of punishing Hana physically and psychologically for what they called her "disobedient" behavior. Jacob saw Carri spank Hana with "switches"^[9] at least once every day in the last six...