State v. Zillyette

178 Wash. 2d 153 (2013) · Supreme Court of Washington · August 1, 2013

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that an information charging controlled substances homicide must identify the controlled substance, its applicable statutory subsection, or its schedule. Because the information against Brenda J. Zillyette merely alleged delivery of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401 and did not specify methadone or schedule II, the court found it constitutionally insufficient, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge without prejudice.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
Fairhurst, J.; Madsen, C.J.; C. Johnson, J.; Owens, J.; J.M. Johnson, J.; Stephens, J.; Wiggins, J.; González, J.; Gordon McCloud, J.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
August 1, 2013
Procedural posture
Zillyette sought review of the Court of Appeals' second decision affirming her conviction for controlled substances homicide. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the charging information.
Standard of review
Constitutional violations are reviewed de novo. The sufficiency of a charging document first raised on appeal is reviewed under the liberal-construction two-pronged Kjorsvik test.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Brenda J. Zillyette v. State of Washington
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal proceduresixth amendmentappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the identity or classification of the controlled substance is an essential element of controlled substances homicide.
  2. Whether an information charging controlled substances homicide is sufficient when it alleges delivery of a controlled substance causing death but does not identify the particular substance, applicable statutory subsection, or schedule.

Holdings

  1. The identity of the controlled substance, or alternatively the applicable RCW 69.50.401(2) subsection or schedule, is an essential element of controlled substances homicide because not every controlled substance can serve as the basis for that offense.
  2. The information was constitutionally insufficient because it did not identify methadone, the applicable schedule, or the applicable statutory subsection, and the defect could not be cured by liberal construction.

Key quotations

The identity of the controlled substance, or at least the schedule of the controlled substance, is an essential element of the crime of controlled substances homicide because such specification is necessary to establish the illegality of the act. (at 160-161)
Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals, vacate Zillyette’s conviction for controlled substances homicide, and dismiss the charge without prejudice. (at 164)

Factual background

Austin Burrows died after ingesting large quantities of Xanax and methadone, which investigators determined he had received from Brenda Zillyette. The State charged Zillyette with controlled substances homicide but alleged only that she delivered a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401, without identifying the substance or its schedule. Methadone is a schedule II controlled substance potentially supporting controlled substances homicide, while Xanax is a schedule IV substance that cannot support that charge.

Procedural history

The State charged Zillyette with controlled substances homicide after Austin Burrows died following ingestion of methadone and Xanax. After a bench trial, the trial court convicted her and imposed a 55-month sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed twice, but the Washington Supreme Court granted review and held that the information failed to allege an essential element of the offense.

Remand instructions

The court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated Zillyette's conviction for controlled substances homicide, and dismissed the charge without prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…