State v. Essex
1990 Wash. App. LEXIS 118, 788 P.2d 589, 57 Wash. App. 411 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Washington's hound stamp statute, RCW 77.32.350, requires every individual who hunts with a dog to possess a hound stamp, regardless of who owns the dog. The requirement is based on the act of hunting with a dog, not the ownership of the dog.
Facts:
- In April 1985, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent Joseph Sandberg began a covert investigation into hunting violations, hiring Jerry Essex and his partner Jerry Branton as paid guides for a bear hunt.
- The fee included the guides' promise to purchase resident bear tags, licenses, and hound stamps for Sandberg and another undercover agent, Scott Pearson.
- During an initial hunt in Skamania County, Essex provided and supervised the use of dogs. After Pearson killed a bear, the guides sold him a bear tag belonging to Branton's wife, as neither agent had been provided with their own licenses or tags.
- Essex and Branton arranged a second hunt in Klickitat County for Sandberg, who was joined by another undercover agent, Barry Dreher.
- During this second hunt, Essex and his dogs treed a bear which Dreher shot.
- That evening, Sandberg explicitly told all the guides, including Essex, that he did not have a hunting license or a bear tag.
- The next day, with Essex's knowledge, Branton gave Sandberg a bear tag belonging to a third party, which Sandberg used to tag a bear he shot after it was treed by the hunting party.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Jerry Essex in Klickitat County Superior Court (a trial court) as an accomplice to several hunting violations.
- During the jury trial, Essex moved for a mistrial based on testimony related to an uncharged crime, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court also admitted evidence regarding a prior illegal hunt involving Essex, ruling it was relevant to show a common scheme.
- The jury convicted Essex as an accomplice on four counts: two for unlawful hunting without a bear stamp, one for unlawful hunting without a hound stamp, and one for unlawful hunting without a hunting license.
- Essex (appellant) appealed the judgment and convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court), arguing the trial court made evidentiary errors and misinterpreted the hound stamp statute.
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 Washington's hound stamp statute, RCW 77.32.350, require every person who participates in a hunt using a dog to purchase and possess a hound stamp, or only the owner of the dog?
Opinions:
Majority - Shields, J.
Yes, the statute requires every person hunting with a dog to possess a hound stamp. The court reasoned that the unambiguous language of RCW 77.32.350 states a hound stamp is required 'to hunt wild animals ... with a dog.' The statutory definition of 'to hunt' encompasses any effort to kill, injure, or capture a wild animal. Since the undercover agents were actively participating in the hunt with the aid of dogs, they were required to have hound stamps affixed to their own hunting licenses. The court explicitly held that it is the act of hunting with a dog, not the ownership of the dog, that triggers the statutory requirement. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, finding that evidence of a prior illegal hunt was admissible under ER 404(b) not to show a 'common scheme,' but to prove Essex’s 'knowledge' that the agent was unlicensed, a key element for accomplice liability. It also found that a curative instruction to the jury was sufficient to remedy any prejudice from an improper testimonial reference to Essex's involvement in a separate crime.
Analysis:
This decision provides the first judicial interpretation of Washington's hound stamp statute, establishing a clear and broad application of the law. By holding that culpability arises from the act of hunting with a dog rather than ownership, the case significantly expands potential liability to all members of a hunting party using dogs. This precedent makes it easier for the state to prosecute individuals in guided hunts or group excursions for licensing violations, as each participant is individually responsible for compliance. The opinion also serves as a useful example of how an appellate court can affirm a trial court's evidentiary ruling on alternative grounds, upholding the admission of prior acts to prove knowledge even when the trial court's original 'common plan' rationale was weak.
