Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Calvin Smith’s driving privilege had been revoked because he was found to be an habitual traffic offender, an essential element of first-degree driving while license suspended or revoked. The court rejected reliance on the designation “revoked in the first degree” alone and reversed the conviction, remanding for dismissal with prejudice. The court did not reach Smith’s unpreserved hearsay challenge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith preserved a hearsay objection to the Department of Licensing exhibit by objecting only to its foundation.
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the habitual-offender revocation element of first-degree driving while license suspended or revoked under RCW 46.20.342(1)(a).
- Whether defense counsel's closing argument could render harmless the State's failure to present evidence of Smith's habitual offender status.
- Whether reversal for insufficient evidence required dismissal with prejudice rather than retrial.
Holdings
- An objection to the foundation of the Department of Licensing exhibit was insufficient to preserve a hearsay objection for appellate review.
- In a prosecution for first-degree driving while license suspended or revoked, the State must prove that the defendant was driving while subject to an order of revocation issued under chapter 46.65 RCW because the defendant had been found to be an habitual offender.
- The evidence was insufficient to support Smith's first-degree DWLS conviction because it showed only that his license was revoked in the first degree and did not prove that he had been found to be an habitual traffic offender under chapter 46.65 RCW.
- Defense counsel's closing argument did not cure the State's failure to present evidence of Smith's habitual offender status and could not be treated as a guilty plea.
- Reversal for insufficient evidence requires dismissal of the charge with prejudice; retrial is prohibited.
Key quotations
“We hold that there is insufficient evidence to support a necessary element of that crime. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charge with prejudice.” (496)
“Accordingly, we hold that in a prosecution for DWLS in the first degree, the State must prove that the accused was under an order of revocation as an habitual offender under chapter 46.65 RCW at the time of his violation.” (504)
“Retrial following reversal for insufficient evidence is ‘unequivocally prohibited’ and dismissal is the remedy.” (505)
Factual background
On May 7, 2002, Calvin Smith drove during a high-speed police chase. The State introduced a Department of Licensing custodian statement indicating that his driving privilege was suspended or revoked in the first degree, but the referenced revocation order and other driving-record documents were not attached or admitted. Smith acknowledged that his license was suspended in the first degree, but the evidence did not establish that the revocation resulted from a finding that he was an habitual traffic offender under chapter 46.65 RCW.
Procedural history
Smith was charged in King County with several offenses, including first-degree DWLS based on habitual traffic offender status. A jury convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed because the State failed to prove that Smith's license was revoked pursuant to an habitual offender order and remanded for vacation of the conviction and dismissal with prejudice.
Remand instructions
Remand to vacate Smith's first-degree DWLS conviction and dismiss the habitual-offender DWLS charge with prejudice.