State v. Ferreira
69 Wash. App. 465, 850 P.2d 541, 1993 Wash. App. LEXIS 163 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To secure a conviction for first-degree assault, the prosecution must prove a specific intent to inflict great bodily harm, which is not established merely by firing shots into a house that is likely occupied. However, such an act is sufficient to prove the intent to create apprehension or fear of bodily injury, thereby constituting second-degree assault.
Facts:
- Earlier in the day of the main incident, Christopher Ferreira was a passenger in a car when Tommy Rabadan shot at another juvenile, Justin Cunningham.
- Later that day, Ferreira was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Marisol Rocha, along with Tommy Rabadan and two other individuals.
- Ferreira gave the driver, Ms. Rocha, directions to the Plaster family's home.
- Upon arriving, Tommy Rabadan and Crespin Perez fired at least 13 bullets from the vehicle into the Plaster home.
- At the time of the shooting, five people were inside the house, including six-year-old Erin Plaster.
- Erin Plaster was struck by a bullet, which pierced her shoulder and hand.
- Ferreira later admitted to police that he knew beforehand that the shooting was going to occur.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Christopher Ferreira, a juvenile, with seven counts of being an accomplice to first degree assault.
- One count was dismissed prior to trial.
- The trial court found Ferreira guilty on five of the remaining six counts of first-degree assault.
- The court sentenced Ferreira to an aggregate term of 309 to 387 weeks, applying the 300 percent rule for consecutive sentences based on multiple victims.
- Ferreira (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Washington Court of Appeals.
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 firing multiple bullets into a house that is only 'likely apparent' to be occupied, without specific evidence that the shooters saw or aimed at any person, satisfy the 'intent to inflict great bodily harm' element required for a first-degree assault conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
No. Firing shots into a house that is merely 'likely apparent' to be occupied is insufficient evidence to prove the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm required for first-degree assault. The court reasoned that because the trial court specifically rejected a finding that the shooters saw anyone inside the home, the State failed to meet its burden of proving the shooters acted with the objective to cause great bodily harm. However, the evidence does support the conclusion that the shooters intended to create apprehension or fear in the likely occupants, which satisfies the elements of the lesser included offense of second-degree assault (assault with a deadly weapon). The court also held that Ferreira's actions of giving directions with prior knowledge of the plan went beyond 'mere presence' and were sufficient to establish accomplice liability. Finally, the court determined that a crime involving multiple victims does not constitute a 'single act' under the juvenile sentencing statute, so the 300 percent sentencing rule for consecutive terms was correctly applied.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary threshold for proving the specific intent element in first-degree assault cases, particularly in the context of drive-by shootings. By reducing the conviction to second-degree assault, the court establishes that the mere likelihood of a home's occupancy is not enough to infer intent to cause great bodily harm; prosecutors need more direct evidence of such intent. The decision reinforces a broad interpretation of accomplice liability, confirming that providing aid like directions with knowledge of a criminal plan is sufficient for a conviction. Furthermore, the ruling aligns juvenile sentencing with adult sentencing principles by treating each victim of a criminal act as a basis for a separate offense, thus allowing for significantly longer aggregate sentences.
