State v. Vander Houwen

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a property owner has a constitutional right to defend property from destructive wildlife when killing the animals is reasonably necessary. The court ruled that the trial court improperly replaced approved defense-of-property instructions with a necessity instruction that placed the burden of persuasion on the defendant. It also held that the lack of a unanimity instruction and the State's failure to identify the specific acts supporting two convictions constituted reversible constitutional error.

Holdings

1. When a property owner charged with unlawful hunting or waste of wildlife presents sufficient evidence that he exercised his constitutional right to protect his property from destructive game, the jury must be instructed on that property-defense right, and the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The defendant bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to support a property-defense instruction, but the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's killing of protected game was not justified.
3. The invited-error doctrine does not bar review when a defendant originally requests correct jury instructions, the court rejects them, and the defendant then proposes an inadequate alternative instruction rather than proceeding without any justification instruction.
4. In a multiple-acts criminal prosecution, the State must either elect the particular criminal act on which it relies or the trial court must instruct the jury that all jurors must agree on the same underlying criminal act. Failure to do so is constitutional error when the evidence does not identify the act supporting each count.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give jury instructions recognizing a property owner's constitutional right to kill destructive elk when reasonably necessary to protect property and instead giving only a necessity instruction that placed the burden of proof on the defendant.
2. Whether the absence of a unanimity instruction, combined with the State's failure to identify the specific criminal acts supporting the two convictions, constituted constitutional error.
3. Whether the invited-error doctrine barred appellate review because Vander Houwen submitted the alternative necessity instruction after the court rejected his requested property-defense instructions.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded