Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

The case of State v. Stephenson is a significant Washington Court of Appeals decision that highlights critical issues involving jury unanimity in criminal trials. Decided on December 19, 1997, by Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals, the ruling revolved around whether David Stephenson’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated. The decision ultimately resulted in a reversal of Stephenson’s convictions for second-degree theft. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges in Washington State, it’s essential to understand how jury instructions can impact the outcome of a case. At Blanford Law, we specialize in defending criminal cases and ensuring your rights are fully protected.

Case Background: David Stephenson and Mortgage Broker Fraud

David Stephenson operated under the name “Statewide Financial Services” as a mortgage broker in Kitsap County. He presented his business as a large-scale operation, but in reality, it was a one-person unincorporated business. He convinced two clients, William Chambers and Walter Boelter, to pay him $300 each for property appraisals and an additional $200 non-refundable retainer fee. Despite taking their money and assuring them loans were in process, Stephenson failed to secure the loans or refund the clients, prompting both Chambers and Boelter to file complaints with the Attorney General’s office.

Stephenson’s business practices violated the Mortgage Brokerage Practices Act, which requires that all fees collected be deposited into a trust account until services are rendered. In this case, Stephenson used the funds for other business expenses, which led to the State charging him with two counts of second-degree theft.

The central issue in the State v. Stephenson appeal was whether Stephenson’s right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated. Under Washington law, when a defendant is charged with multiple acts, the jury must agree on which specific act constituted the crime. The trial court instructed the jury in a way that allowed jurors to convict Stephenson for either the theft of money or theft of services—without requiring a unanimous decision on which specific act he committed.

Because the instructions allowed for multiple interpretations, some jurors could have found Stephenson guilty of theft against Chambers, while others could have found him guilty against Boelter. This discrepancy led to a violation of the jury unanimity requirement, as outlined in RCW 9A.56.020 and previous decisions in State v. Lee and State v. Stephens. Consequently, the appellate court reversed Stephenson’s convictions, ruling that the lack of a specific unanimity instruction resulted in an unfair trial.

The Outcome and Its Impact on Washington State Law

The appellate court’s decision in State v. Stephenson clarifies that when a trial court presents multiple victims or acts in jury instructions, a unanimity instruction is mandatory to ensure a fair verdict. The court concluded that a new trial could proceed for the theft of money, but Stephenson could not be retried for theft of services due to double jeopardy concerns.

This case underscores the complexity of defending against theft charges and navigating Washington State’s legal requirements for jury unanimity. If you’re facing similar charges, it’s crucial to work with an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands the nuances of Washington law.

Blanford Law: Here to Help

At Blanford Law, we have the expertise to defend against complex criminal charges, protect your rights, and ensure that you receive a fair trial. Contact us today to learn how we can help you build a strong defense.

For more detailed information, you can read the full court opinion here.

Additional Resources

1. Cle Elum Theft Code § 9.20.040: Misdemeanor Theft
Explains how misdemeanor theft is defined and prosecuted under the Cle Elum municipal code.

2. RCW 46.61.740: Theft of Motor Vehicle Fuel in Washington
Details how Washington criminalizes stealing gasoline or diesel directly from a vehicle or gas station.

3. Fair Cross-Section Jury in Washington: State v. Rivers
Analyzes how jury composition must reflect a fair cross-section of the community, with insights from State v. Rivers.

4. Failure to Appear, Bail Jumping & Jury Nullification
Discusses the legal implications of missing court, bail jumping, and the controversial concept of jury nullification.

5. Revisiting State v. Jackson: A Supreme Court Reversal
Covers a major Washington Supreme Court decision involving jury inference instructions and defendant rights.