State v. Thompson

498 P.3d 40

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Michael Sean THOMPSON, Appellant.

No. 80602-5-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED November 8, 2021

Nielsen Koch PLLC, Jennifer L Dobson, Attorneys at Law, 1908 E. Madison St., Seattle, WA, 98122, for Appellant.

Prosecuting Atty. King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, James Morrissey Whisman, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave. Ste. W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Dwyer, J.

¶1 Michael Thompson appeals from the judgment entered on a jury's verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree. He raises numerous claims of error, among them that (1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of his insanity and (2) double jeopardy barred his second trial after his first trial ended in a mistrial. His first claim has merit, his second does not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I

¶2 Michael Thompson suffers from severe mental illness and began using drugs regularly as a young teenager. In 2012, Thompson began living in an apartment at Kenyon House, a housing program run by Sound Mental Health for people who have been chronically homeless and suffer from both HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) or AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome ) and chronic mental illness or substance abuse issues. In January 2014, Thompson was sentenced on a conviction of taking a motor vehicle and was ordered to serve eight months on electronic home monitoring. Thompson was required to begin serving this sentence by May 19, 2014. On that day, Thompson attempted to set up electronic home monitoring at his apartment at Kenyon House but was unable to do so because the equipment provided was incompatible with the telephone line at his residence.

¶3 Thompson became depressed, believing that he would have to go to jail. He began drinking alcohol and using drugs and continued to do so around different areas of downtown Seattle for several days. Eventually, Thompson encountered an acquaintance, Daryl Ford. Ford and Thompson drank beer together and then went to Thompson's apartment and used drugs supplied by Ford.

¶4 At trial, Thompson testified that, in the apartment, Ford made sexual advances toward him over his verbal objections. According to Thompson's testimony, Ford then repeatedly attempted to sexually assault Thompson and prevented Thompson from leaving the apartment at knifepoint, telling Thompson, "You ain't smoking my shit for free." Ford was "slicing" at Thompson with the knife, Thompson testified, causing Thompson to retreat to a bathroom in which he hit his head against a towel rack, losing consciousness.

¶5 Upon awakening, Thompson found himself on the floor stabbing Ford's hand with the knife. Ford was dead. An autopsy later revealed that Ford had 87 injuries produced by a knife.

¶6 Thompson cleaned the apartment and removed the body. He did so by wrapping Ford's body in blankets, placing it in a shopping cart, and pushing it down the street. A neighbor saw him moving the cart, became suspicious, and called the police. Police officers discovered the body and found Thompson's fingerprints on the cart.

¶7 Thompson was arrested at his wife's home in south King County.¹ He was charged with murder in the second degree for causing the death of Ford while committing a felony (assault) while armed with a deadly weapon. The information was later amended to add an alternative count of intentional murder in the second degree while armed with a deadly weapon.

¶8 Thompson's first trial took place in 2017. After 14 days, the judge declared a mistrial because the prosecutor asked Thompson several questions regarding why he had not told detectives about Ford's attempted assault, causing him to explain several times that he had invoked his right to silence.

¶9 Thompson was tried again in 2019 with new defense counsel. He was convicted of felony murder while armed with a deadly weapon.

¶10 Thompson appeals.

II

¶11 Thompson contends that the trial court erred by denying him the right to advance the defense of insanity. We regard Thompson's challenge as one to the trial court's evidentiary ruling, which excluded any evidence of insanity,² and we agree.

¶12 According to Thompson, the trial court's ruling violated his "right to present a defense." Our Supreme Court has explained that a contention that an evidentiary ruling violated a defendant's constitutional "right to present a defense" is reviewed pursuant to a two-step process. State v. Arndt, 194 Wash.2d 784, 797-98, 453 P.3d 696 (2019). First, we review the challenged evidentiary ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. Then, if necessary, we review de novo whether the ruling violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. See Arndt, 194 Wash.2d at 797-98, 453 P.3d 696.

¶13 A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, such as a misunderstanding of the law. State v. Enriquez-Martinez, 198 Wash.2d 98, 492 P.3d 162, 164 (2021).

¶14 Insanity is a defense that completely absolves a defendant of criminal liability. State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wash.2d 789, 793, 659 P.2d 488 (1983). It is available only to "those persons who have lost contact with reality so completely that they are beyond any of the influences of the criminal law." State v. White, 60 Wash.2d 551, 590, 374 P.2d 942 (1962). Insanity is an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 10.77.030(2) ; State v. Box, 109 Wash.2d 320, 322, 745 P.2d 23 (1987). Additionally, "[b]ecause the law presumes that an individual is sane at the time that the individual commits a crime, a defendant asserting the insanity defense bears the initial burden of producing evidence of insanity." State v. Chanthabouly, 164 Wash. App. 104, 127-28, 262 P.3d 144 (2011) (citing Box, 109 Wash.2d at 322, 745 P.2d 23 ). To establish the defense of insanity, the defendant must show that

(1) [a]t the time of the commission of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, the mind of the actor was affected to such an extent that:

(a) He or she was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he or she is charged; or

(b) He or she was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular act charged.

RCW 9A.12.010.

¶15 Further, "[n]o condition of mind proximately induced by the voluntary act of a person charged with a crime shall constitute insanity." RCW 10.77.030(3).

¶16 Prior to his second trial, Thompson requested that the jury be instructed on insanity and sought to present evidence, through expert testimony, that he suffered from mental illnesses—specifically posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and a developmental disability—which "rendered him unable to perceive the nature and quality of his act" at the time of the offense. Thompson filed a declaration from psychiatrist Dr. Richard Adler, in which Dr. Adler stated:

[M]y opinion is that Mr. Thompson was insane at the time of the incident. As a result of his mental disease: Major Depression with psychotic features, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to multiple etiologies, the defendant's mind was affected to such an extent that he was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the acts with which the defendant is charged (intentional murder) and/or was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular acts with which defendant is charged – i.e., overwhelmingly paranoid and acting in self-defense. This mental state was aggravated by the consumption of drugs and alcohol.

¶17 With regard to Thompson's voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense, Thompson's counsel explained:

We have opinions from our experts that say that by [the] preponderance of the evidence according to their reasonable medical certainty that Mr. Thompson was insane at the time, that he was unable to appreciate the nature, the consequences of what he was doing.

....

Both experts say that they believe that Mr. Thompson's voluntary intoxication did not proximately induce his inability to perceive the nature and consequences of his actions. They believe that given his developmental disability; his PTSD based on longstanding, lifelong abuse, both physical and emotional; and then finally, his depression, that given the situation with Mr. Ford where Mr. Ford tries to sexually assault Mr. Thompson, they believe that in response to that, even without the intoxication, he would have responded in the same way. They do opine that Mr. Thompson's intoxication was a factor and that maybe it had some role in enhancing his paranoia at the time.

¶18 Nevertheless, the trial court excluded any reference to insanity because the expert witnesses were of the opinion that Thompson's mental state at the time of the offense was also impacted by his voluntary use of drugs and alcohol. In doing so, the trial court assumed that the term "condition of mind" refers to insanity, observing that "there can be multiple proximate causes" of a defendant's state of mind, and stating that

RCW 10.77.030(3) talks about "No condition of mind proximately induced by the voluntary act of a person charged with a crime shall constitute insanity." Even taking the defense's experts—in looking at those reports in the light most favorable even to Mr. Thompson, the defense experts cannot preclude intoxication—voluntary intoxication, as a proximate cause of having induced—having been an inducement.

¶19 But insanity is not the "condition of mind" referenced in the statute.³ Rather, insanity is a legal conclusion about a defendant's mental state that is appropriately made when a defendant's mind is so impaired by a "mental disease or defect" that the defendant is "unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he or she is charged" or is "unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the...