sigfan
Regular Member
I just watched arguments on State of Washington v Kenneth Budic in the Washington Supreme court that were presented on 6/14. Case number was 84714-2 if anyone wants to dig into the details.
Summary is this, Mr Budik was the passenger in a vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was a known gang member. During the course of the evening, a rival gang approached the vehicle and shot both Mr Budik and the driver. The driver died and Mr Budik was bleeding. Police approached in response to a call. They asked Mr Budik if he knew who shot him and he said "no". He also asked police to go protect his family. The police did send members to protect the familiy but also continued the investigation.
During the course of the investigation into the incident, they learned that Mr Budik did, in fact, know who shot him. They charged him with "rendering criminal assistance in the first degree" (9A.76.070)
Mr Budik was not a family member so that strikes all of subsection (2). What the court seemed concerned with was wether this granted the police rights to easily abuse this power. They asked what would have happened if he simply gave them blank looks and didn't answer at all. They were concerned that anyone who simply exercised their constitutional rights to remain quiet would also be affected by this. The definition of "Rendering criminal assistance" is found in 9A.76.050.
The justices (and prosecution) were set on part 4 of the definition and more specifically hung on the word "deception" since he stated that he didn't know the person. The prosecution's argument was that because Mr Budik said "no" the police were obstructed from finding the person who shot them. The defense argument was very interesting and the justices seemed to be buying into it. First, Mr Budik was the victim of a crime. His answers would likely be shakey at this point regardless. (side note: this is why you need to practice over and over what you'd say if you were ever involved in a shooting). Second, Mr Budik's testimony, even if false, was not necessarily deception. Saying "no" would be different than saying "Yes, and he went THAT WAY [pointing in a different direction]." This was supported by the legistion that ours was drawn from. Third, although she does not challenge the constitutionality of the law, she does state that the vaguness needs further definition and clarification through legal precident to keep it from wandering into unconstitutional territory.
The justices seemed to worry that this would have broad reaching applications if they affirmed Mr Badik's jury conviction. Was Mr Budik's false statement itself coerced (men approaching with weapons drawn right after he was shot). Would you prevent victims from giving statements in the future out of fear that you may slip up and end up with a felony. They also had concern that the man would be charged with a felony for simply saying he didn't know the man -- which apparently had no material information which would obstruct the police.
The arguments were great and I liked where the justices seemed to be leaning (reversal of his guilty verdict). The verdict hasn't been decided yet, but it will be worth watching.
So why am I posting this here? I believe this case could have implications on some of us who may have the unfortunate incident that requires us to use our firearm. Massad Ayoob has often said that police are compelled to give information after they shoot someone. They are required to answer a set of questions that are designed to help police understand if there are other things they should be looking at, but without putting the police in jeopardy of criminal prosecution because of it. Because these answers are compelled, they are not legal testimony. We, however, don't have the same luxury. If ths conviction is upheld, stating "I'm willing to talk with you in 48 hours with my attorney" could land you in hot water. It's worth watching and I hope it's overturned.
Thanks for listening to my very sleepy message. I hope I made some sense. I'll update tomorrow if it didn't make sense. Thanks again.
Summary is this, Mr Budik was the passenger in a vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was a known gang member. During the course of the evening, a rival gang approached the vehicle and shot both Mr Budik and the driver. The driver died and Mr Budik was bleeding. Police approached in response to a call. They asked Mr Budik if he knew who shot him and he said "no". He also asked police to go protect his family. The police did send members to protect the familiy but also continued the investigation.
During the course of the investigation into the incident, they learned that Mr Budik did, in fact, know who shot him. They charged him with "rendering criminal assistance in the first degree" (9A.76.070)
Mr Budik was not a family member so that strikes all of subsection (2). What the court seemed concerned with was wether this granted the police rights to easily abuse this power. They asked what would have happened if he simply gave them blank looks and didn't answer at all. They were concerned that anyone who simply exercised their constitutional rights to remain quiet would also be affected by this. The definition of "Rendering criminal assistance" is found in 9A.76.050.
The justices (and prosecution) were set on part 4 of the definition and more specifically hung on the word "deception" since he stated that he didn't know the person. The prosecution's argument was that because Mr Budik said "no" the police were obstructed from finding the person who shot them. The defense argument was very interesting and the justices seemed to be buying into it. First, Mr Budik was the victim of a crime. His answers would likely be shakey at this point regardless. (side note: this is why you need to practice over and over what you'd say if you were ever involved in a shooting). Second, Mr Budik's testimony, even if false, was not necessarily deception. Saying "no" would be different than saying "Yes, and he went THAT WAY [pointing in a different direction]." This was supported by the legistion that ours was drawn from. Third, although she does not challenge the constitutionality of the law, she does state that the vaguness needs further definition and clarification through legal precident to keep it from wandering into unconstitutional territory.
The justices seemed to worry that this would have broad reaching applications if they affirmed Mr Badik's jury conviction. Was Mr Budik's false statement itself coerced (men approaching with weapons drawn right after he was shot). Would you prevent victims from giving statements in the future out of fear that you may slip up and end up with a felony. They also had concern that the man would be charged with a felony for simply saying he didn't know the man -- which apparently had no material information which would obstruct the police.
The arguments were great and I liked where the justices seemed to be leaning (reversal of his guilty verdict). The verdict hasn't been decided yet, but it will be worth watching.
So why am I posting this here? I believe this case could have implications on some of us who may have the unfortunate incident that requires us to use our firearm. Massad Ayoob has often said that police are compelled to give information after they shoot someone. They are required to answer a set of questions that are designed to help police understand if there are other things they should be looking at, but without putting the police in jeopardy of criminal prosecution because of it. Because these answers are compelled, they are not legal testimony. We, however, don't have the same luxury. If ths conviction is upheld, stating "I'm willing to talk with you in 48 hours with my attorney" could land you in hot water. It's worth watching and I hope it's overturned.
Thanks for listening to my very sleepy message. I hope I made some sense. I'll update tomorrow if it didn't make sense. Thanks again.
.. so let me see if I can shed more clarification on my statement.
