State v. Roswell
196 P.3d 705 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant does not have a right to waive a jury trial on a single element of a crime, such as a prior conviction, and have that element tried by a judge in order to bifurcate the trial and shield the jury from potentially prejudicial information.
Facts:
- Johnathon Roswell, age 21, frequently went to a park where three minor girls, DMW (14), CMP (16), and LB (16), would 'hang out'.
- Roswell developed a relationship with DMW, who later testified that he touched her breasts and genital area and asked her for sex.
- CMP provided similar testimony, stating Roswell touched her in an uncomfortable way and talked about sex.
- Roswell carried a 'little black book' and asked DMW and CMP to sign it, indicating they would have sex with him when they turned 18, which they did.
- Roswell had a 2001 juvenile conviction for third-degree rape and a 2003 adult conviction for third-degree child molestation, both felony sexual offenses.
- Under the relevant Washington statute, a prior felony sexual offense conviction elevates the crime of 'communication with a minor for immoral purposes' from a gross misdemeanor to a felony.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnathon Roswell was charged in a Washington state trial court with child molestation and felony communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
- Roswell filed a pre-trial motion in limine to bifurcate the trial, asking to waive his right to a jury on the prior conviction element and have the judge decide that specific fact.
- The trial judge denied Roswell's motion to bifurcate but limited the details of the prior conviction that could be presented to the jury.
- A jury found Roswell guilty of one count of second degree child molestation and two counts of felony communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
- Roswell, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed the convictions.
- Roswell then petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review, which was granted.
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 criminal defendant have a right to waive a jury trial on a prior conviction element of a charged offense and have that element tried by the judge, thereby bifurcating the trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chambers, J.
No. A defendant does not have a right to bifurcate a trial by waiving a jury determination on only one element of a crime. A prior conviction that elevates the level of an offense is an essential element that the State must prove to the trier of fact, and a defendant cannot unilaterally remove that element from the jury's consideration. The court reasoned that there is a critical distinction between a sentence aggravator and an element of a crime. While a defendant may waive a jury trial on a sentence aggravator, an element is an essential component of the offense itself that must be proven to secure a conviction for that specific crime. The court distinguished its prior holding in State v. Oster, explaining that Oster permitted discretionary bifurcation of jury instructions to reduce prejudice but did not establish a defendant's right to a bifurcated trial where different fact-finders decide different elements. While courts can and should take steps to mitigate prejudice, such as accepting stipulations to the fact of a conviction under Old Chief v. United States, they are not required to remove the element from the jury's purview entirely.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that the jury is the fact-finder for all essential elements of a charged crime. It clarifies that a defendant's right to waive a jury trial on sentencing aggravators does not extend to the elements of the underlying offense. By rejecting a right to a 'hybrid' trial, the court preserves the State's ability to present its full case to a single fact-finder and maintains the trial court's discretion, rather than a defendant's choice, in managing prejudice. Future cases involving crimes where a prior conviction is an element will rely on this precedent to deny mandatory bifurcation, directing defendants instead toward remedies like stipulation or discretionary instructional bifurcation.
