State Of Washington v. Kenneth A. Ward
438 P.3d 588 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense is violated when a trial court excludes all evidence related to the defendant's sole defense of necessity, provided the defendant makes a sufficient preliminary showing (offer of proof) that they could potentially satisfy each element of the defense for a jury.
Facts:
- Kenneth Ward believed that the continued use of Canadian tar sands oil significantly contributes to a climate change crisis and that governments were failing to act.
- On October 11, 2016, as part of a coordinated protest, Ward cut a padlock and entered a Kinder Morgan pipeline facility in Burlington, Washington.
- Inside the facility, Ward closed a valve on the Trans-Mountain pipeline, which temporarily stopped the flow of Canadian tar sands oil into the United States.
- After closing the valve, Ward placed sunflowers on it and waited to be arrested.
- Ward had a 40-year history of environmental activism and believed, based on past failures of traditional methods, that direct action was necessary to address the climate crisis.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Kenneth Ward with burglary in the second degree, criminal sabotage, and criminal trespass in the second degree.
- The trial court granted the State’s pretrial motion in limine, precluding Ward from presenting any witnesses or evidence in support of his necessity defense.
- Ward’s first trial ended in a hung jury.
- The State recharged Ward with burglary in the second degree and criminal sabotage.
- Ward's motion for reconsideration of the order excluding his necessity defense was denied by the trial court.
- A second jury found Ward guilty of burglary but could not reach a verdict on criminal sabotage.
- Ward (petitioner) appealed his burglary conviction to the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, arguing the exclusion of his defense violated his constitutional rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's exclusion of all evidence supporting a defendant's sole defense of necessity violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, when the defendant makes a sufficient offer of proof on each element of the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mann, A.C.J.
Yes. A trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by excluding all evidence in support of the defendant's sole defense when the defendant has presented a sufficient offer of proof to create a jury question on each element of that defense. Here, Ward provided a sufficient offer of proof for each of the four elements of the necessity defense. He offered evidence and expert testimony suggesting his belief in the necessity of his actions was reasonable, that the harm of climate change is greater than his trespass, that he did not cause the climate crisis, and that legal alternatives were futile after decades of attempts. Because Ward's actions were aimed at a specific harm (the transport of particularly potent tar sands oil) and not merely symbolic, the evidence was not intended solely to induce jury nullification. Therefore, the trial court erred by preventing him from presenting his defense to the jury.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the necessity defense to acts of civil disobedience related to climate change. The court's decision affirms that defendants in such cases have a right to present their motivations and justifications to a jury, provided they can make a credible preliminary showing on each element of the defense. By treating the reasonableness of the defendant's belief and the futility of legal alternatives as questions of fact for the jury, the ruling opens the door for other climate activists to argue necessity in court. This decision may influence how prosecutors charge and how courts manage cases involving political or environmental protests that involve breaking the law.
Unlock the full brief for State Of Washington v. Kenneth A. Ward