State of Washington v. Thomas Harry Eaton, 168 Wash. 2d 476

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a sentencing enhancement for possessing a controlled substance in a county jail or state correctional facility requires proof that the defendant took a voluntary act resulting in placement within the enhancement zone. Because Eaton was arrested outside the jail and forcibly transported there, the State failed to prove the required volitional element. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the enhancement.

Holdings

1. RCW 9.94A.533(5) includes an implied volitional element. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant took some voluntary action placing the defendant within the county jail or state correctional facility before the enhancement may be imposed.
2. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Eaton was volitionally within the enhancement zone because he was arrested outside the jail and transported there by police.
3. Finding a defendant in an enhancement zone while possessing a controlled substance permits, but does not require, the fact finder to infer that the defendant was in the zone voluntarily. The inference alone may not be sufficient to establish volition beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RCW 9.94A.533(5) requires the State to prove that a defendant took a voluntary or volitional act to place himself or herself within a county jail or state correctional facility before imposing the controlled-substance sentencing enhancement.
2. Whether the State met its burden of proving the required volitional component when Eaton was arrested outside the enhancement zone and transported to jail by police.
3. Whether the fact that a defendant is found possessing a controlled substance in an enhancement zone creates a permissive inference of volition that satisfies the State's burden of proof.

Disposition

affirmed