Voluntary Intoxication and Lesser Included Offenses in Second Degree Child Molestation: STATE v. STEVENS: Wash.

Introduction

State of Washington v. Randall Jerome Stevens (158 Wn. 2d 304) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Washington on October 5, 2006. The core issues revolved around the appropriateness of a voluntary intoxication instruction in a second degree child molestation charge and whether fourth degree assault could be considered a lesser included offense of such a charge. Randall Stevens, the respondent, was accused of second degree child molestation involving a non-consensual sexual contact with a minor. The trial court denied Stevens' request for specific jury instructions related to his intoxication and the possibility of a lesser offense, leading to his conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, which the Supreme Court of Washington ultimately affirmed, thereby setting important precedents in Washington state law regarding criminal defenses and jury instructions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Randall Stevens' conviction for second degree child molestation. The Court held that the trial court erred by not providing a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication and by failing to instruct the jury on fourth degree assault as a lesser included offense. The Court reasoned that intent is a crucial element in establishing sexual contact under RCW 9A.44.010(2), and evidence of intoxication could negate this intent. Additionally, the Court determined that fourth degree assault shares necessary elements with second degree child molestation, warranting its consideration as a lesser included offense. As a result, Stevens was entitled to both instructions, and their omission constituted reversible error.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the Court's decision:

STATE v. LORENZ (152 Wn.2d 22): Established that "sexual gratification" is a definitional term within the element of "sexual contact" rather than an independent element requiring proof.
STATE v. BARNES (153 Wn.2d 378): Clarified that jury instructions must accurately reflect the law to prevent misleading the jury.
STATE v. GAMBLE (154 Wn.2d 457): Outlined the two-prong test for determining the appropriateness of lesser included offense instructions.
STATE v. FERNANDEZ-MEDINA (141 Wn.2d 448): Emphasized that all evidence must be considered when deciding on lesser included offense instructions, not just isolated testimonies.
STATE v. KRUP (36 Wn. App. 454): While not directly using the phrase "unlawful touching with criminal intent," it delved into the various definitions of assault, influencing the Court's interpretation.

These cases collectively reinforced the necessity for accurate jury instructions and the careful consideration of lesser offenses in relation to the primary charge.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on interpreting statutory definitions and applying them to the facts of the case:

Voluntary Intoxication: Under RCW 9A.16.090, if intent is a necessary element of a crime, evidence of voluntary intoxication can be relevant to negate that intent. Since second degree child molestation requires proof of intent (purpose of sexual gratification), Stevens was entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
Lesser Included Offense: For an offense to be considered lesser included, all elements of the lesser offense must be encompassed within the charged offense. Initially, it was argued that fourth degree assault fits within second degree child molestation. However, the dissent highlighted that second degree child molestation does not inherently require the elements necessary for fourth degree assault, such as the expectation of harm or offense, thereby challenging the majority's stance.

The majority concluded that intent was pivotal in defining "sexual contact" and that Stevens’ intoxication could negate this intent. Furthermore, they determined that fourth degree assault shared sufficient elements with the charged offense to warrant its inclusion as a lesser offense.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future criminal cases in Washington state, particularly those involving crimes requiring proof of intent and cases where defendants seek to introduce evidence of intoxication as a defense. Key impacts include:

Enhanced Defense Rights: Defendants charged with crimes requiring intent are more likely to receive instructions on voluntary intoxication, ensuring their rights to a fair trial are upheld.
Clarity on Lesser Included Offenses: Courts must meticulously analyze whether lesser included offenses share all necessary elements with the charged offense before providing corresponding jury instructions.
Jury Instruction Accuracy: The decision underscores the importance of precise jury instructions, preventing misinterpretation of legal elements and ensuring that verdicts are based on accurately presented law.

Overall, the ruling strengthens procedural safeguards in the criminal justice system, promoting thorough and equitable trials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment touches upon several intricate legal concepts, which can be distilled for better comprehension:

Voluntary Intoxication Instruction: This is a jury instruction that informs jurors how a defendant's voluntary intoxication may affect their ability to form the necessary intent for a crime. It does not allow intoxication to excuse the crime but provides context for understanding the defendant's mental state.
Lesser Included Offense: This refers to a minor crime that is inherently included within a more serious crime. For a lesser offense to be considered, all its elements must be present within the greater offense.
RCW 9A.44.010(2): This statute defines "sexual contact" as any touching of sexual or intimate parts done for the purpose of satisfying sexual desire, which inherently includes intent.
Two-Prong Test for Lesser Offenses: Established in STATE v. GAMBLE, it requires that every element of the lesser offense is also an element of the greater offense (legal prong) and that there is sufficient evidence to support the lesser offense (factual prong).

Conclusion

State of Washington v. Randall Jerome Stevens serves as a significant precedent in Washington state law by affirming the necessity of voluntary intoxication instructions in cases where intent is a required element. Additionally, it clarifies the stringent criteria that must be met for a lesser included offense to be considered, emphasizing that all elements of the lesser offense must be inherently present within the charged offense. This judgment ensures that defendants receive comprehensive jury instructions that accurately reflect their legal rights and the nuanced elements of the crimes charged, thereby promoting fairness and precision within the judicial process.

Voluntary Intoxication and Lesser Included Offenses in Second Degree Child Molestation: STATE v. STEVENS