Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney

Admitting Evidence of “Common Scheme or Plan” Under Evidence Rule 404(b)

Bellingham Defense Attorney, ER 404(B), Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In  State v. Stearns, No. 103908-5 (Mar. 26, 2026), the WA Supreme Court held that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible under ER 404(b) to show “common scheme or plan” if the prior bad acts were markedly similar to the charged crimes.  Also, the victims in the prior bad acts do not need to be markedly similar to each other for the prior bad acts to be admissible to show common scheme or plan.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1998, Crystal Williams, a 33-year-old Black woman, was found dead in Lavizzo Park in Seattle’s Central District. Ms. Williams worked as a sex worker. Six years later, the Defendant Mr. Stearns’ DNA matched the DNA in the semen found at the crime scene. Police interviewed Mr. Stearns, who was then serving time in prison for another crime. The prosecutor determined there was probable cause to charge Mr. Stearns with Ms. Williams’ murder but failed to bring charges until 12 years later.

The State charged Mr. Stearns with felony murder in the first degree, based on first- and second-degree rape, with sexual motivation. At trial, the State offered, and the court admitted over Mr. Stearns’ objection, evidence of two of Mr. Stearns’ prior rape convictions. The State sought to admit these prior acts under the common scheme or plan exception to ER 404(b) to establish forcible compulsion and to rebut the defense of consent. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the other wrongful acts were not part of a common scheme or plan and that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial.

The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice and that the court would give a limiting instruction to the jury about the purpose of the admitted evidence. The trial court stated that the ER 404(b) evidence’s relevance to prove forcible compulsion and rebut Mr. Stearns’ claim of consent was “critical” to its ruling.  The trial resulted in a hung jury. After numerous appeals and reversals, the WA Supreme Court granted certiori to decide the isue of The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the prior rapes under ER 404(b) to establish forcible compulsion and to rebut the defense of consent.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The WA Supreme Court discussed the parameters of Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b). Under this evidence rule, a trial court may admit the defendant’s other wrongful acts to show a common plan or scheme if the other wrongful acts are (1) proved by a preponderance of the evidence, (2) admitted for the purpose of proving a common plan or scheme, (3) relevant to prove an element of the crime charged or to rebut a defense, and (4) more probative than prejudicial. However, the WA Supreme Court also said a court may not admit evidence of a defendant’s other wrongful acts to show that the defendant has a propensity for criminal behavior. ER 404(b). The reason for this prohibition is the risk that the jury will simply punish a defendant for their other wrongful acts or will assume they committed the current alleged criminal act.

Next, the WA Supreme Court reasoned that when analyzing a defendant’s “common scheme or plan,” courts must consider the acts, the victims and the circumstances of the crimes. On this, the Court reasoned that evidence may be admitted under this exception when a person uses one plan to repeatedly commit separate but very similar crimes. The separate crimes do not have to be identical, but they must be markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances. Further, the acts must have such a concurrence of common features that they are naturally explained as being part of a common plan.

Against that backdrop, the WA Supreme Court ruled that because Mr. stearns’ other acts of sexual assault were sufficiently similar to the present case, it was within the trial court’s discretion to admit that evidence under ER 404(b). First, the other wrongful acts committed by Mr. Stearns were markedly similar to the acts here: he hit each victim on the head, strangled them, and sexually assaulted them, and there is evidence that all three victims were robbed. This factor weighs strongly toward showing a common plan, said the Court.

Second, the dissimilarities between the victims do not weigh heavily in this case. Each woman was a victim of a seemingly random act of violence, who was attacked in Seattle’s Central District in a similar manner. These similarities between the victims are sufficient. Finally, the circumstances of the crimes in this case were similar in that Mr. Stearns was able to attack each victim by tricking them:

“Mr. Stearns entered BG’s home around midnight with a ruse, telling her someone was chasing him. Mr. Stearns attacked DH from behind after appearing to be passed out and lying in the gutter. While many details of Crystal Williams’ death are unknown, based on the circumstances it is likely the killer approached Ms. Williams under the guise of offering drugs or money for sex.” ~Justice Salvador A. Mungia, WA Supreme Court

With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Mr. Stearns’ conviction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Whatcom County Approves New Criminal Justice Sales Tax

Uncategorized, , , ,

WHATCOM — The Whatcom County Council considered and ultimately approved a new 0.1% sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes after a public hearing held on April 14.

A preliminary discussion was first held with the county council during the Feb. 24 meeting, with an understanding that the county executive would bring forth an ordinance at a later meeting.

According to a staff memo, rising costs within the criminal justice system are creating pressures on the 2027-2028 biennium budget. Existing revenue sources are unable to keep up with labor costs and inflation, as revenues sources are projected to grow more slowly.

“Further, the county has already initiated critical services — most notably expanded jail medical services — without a designated, sustainable revenue source,” the staff memo states. “This revenue is needed, not to launch new programs, but to sustain obligations already underway and prevent a more rapid deterioration of the general fund trajectory.”

The sales tax is expected to bring in about $6.5 million to $7 million and could be used to offset operating obligations, such as jail health and food services, sheriff’s office lease and criminal justice labor costs across several departments. Revenue collection can begin July 1.

The public hearing came with mixed feelings, with some saying it should help a broader range of services and that the tax is needed to fund various programs while others said they don’t trust the government to not squander the funds and that it should not be threatening cuts to the sheriff’s department should the tax not pass.

After holding public comment, council voted 5-2 to approve the new tax, with council members Mark Stremler and Ben Elenbaas voting against it. Stremler and Elenbaas then voted on a separate ordinance to instead send the tax increase to the voters. That ordinance did not pass, as the five other council members voted against it.

However, the county’s attorney advised that the council does not have the authority to put the tax on the ballot in this specific instance. Elenbaas and Stremler said they disagreed with the interpretation.

“We want to have the voters of Whatcom County decide if they want to pay this or  do they not want to pay this tax,” Stremler said. “That’s the bottom line.”

According to a presentation from Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler, had the tax not passed the county would need to cut millions of dollars across all county departments. Even with the tax, some modest cuts will still need to be made.

Here are key takeaways:

• What it costs you: The tax adds 10 cents to every $100 purchase, amounting to about $25 to $45 annually for the average Whatcom County family.

• When it starts: The tax takes effect July 1 and could raise $6.5 to $7 million annually for the county.

• Why the county says it’s needed: County Executive Satpal Sidhu called the tax a “crucial step toward fixing the structural imbalance in the county’s annual budget.” Without it, the county faces a $12 million deficit by 2028 and potential cuts to the Sheriff’s Office, courts and Prosecutor’s Office.

• No public vote — for now: A companion advisory referendum failed 2-5. A voter referendum under state law isn’t allowed until 2028, according to Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Thulin.

• Where the money goes: Funds will pay for health and food services at the county jail, a lease on a new Sheriff’s Office building and labor costs.

My opinion? Criminal justice sales taxes (often known as public safety sales taxes) are a specialized tax, such as the 0.1% increase recently implemented in several Washington state jurisdictions. Whether they are considered “good” or “bad” depends largely on whether the need for immediate funding outweighs concerns about equity and tax fairness.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Marijuana Arrests Decrease

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

The Marijuana Policy Project just released a new report on weed-related arrests in the United States. Based on FBI Crime Explorer data, the report examines cannabis arrest data in all 50 states, including a state-by-state breakdown of arrest data. In short, the report shows that states have turned to more pragmatic regulation and legalization of cannabis. The era of mass arrests is decreasing.

“Cannabis legalization across 24 states has driven a historic decline in cannabis arrests nationwide, from a high of nearly 900,000 to over 200,000 annually. That is still an alarmingly high number, with each of those arrests representing an actual person whose current reality and future prospects may well be derailed by a criminal record. Across half of our country, hundreds of thousands of Americans are still being funneled into the criminal justice system every year for a victimless ‘crime’ that is very likely legal in the next state over.” ~Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Adam J. Smith

THE NUMBERS

The report found that annual cannabis arrests in the United States dropped from a peak of over 870,000 in 2007 to 211,104 in 2025. The findings show that cannabis arrest rates have dropped 85.53%, with possession arrests dropping by an average of 84.61% and sales arrests decreasing by an average of 80.39%.

In 2025, law enforcement agencies in states that have legalized marijuana reported 22,357 cannabis arrests, while states that continue to prohibit pot reported 186,581 cannabis arrests. The 24 states with legal cannabis made a total of 222,261 fewer cannabis arrests in 2025 compared to the year prior to their legalization of cannabis. Prohibition states made more than eight times as many cannabis arrests than legalization states in 2025, although they have a smaller total population.

My opinion? We’ve come a long way since nearly 900,000 annual arrests. Nevertheless, 200,000 Americans arrested every year for cannabis is still a human rights disaster that must end. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Millionaires Tax Will Not Help Fund Public Defense

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Last month, Washington state lawmakers rejected a plan to use a new income tax to help pay for lawyers for criminal defendants, despite warnings of a growing public defense crisis. Apparently, the rising public defense costs — driven by new state caseload standards — could push county governments toward bankruptcy and bring the state’s criminal justice system to a standstill, county officials say.

THE NUMBERS

Washington’s counties paid more than $200 million to provide public defense services in 2024, Young’s group estimated. The state picked up less than $6 million of those costs that year. The Legislature has since boosted its contribution to $13.6 million annually. Unfortunately, this is merely a fraction of current costs, especially with the new caseload standards ramping up.

BACKGROUND

Early versions of the Legislature’s new tax on annual incomes over $1 million – commonly called a “millionaires tax” – would have directed between 5% and 7% of the revenue to county and city public defense costs. However, that language was stripped out of the bill that ultimately passed last week.

Instead, local governments could lose more than $300 million per year due to sales tax breaks in the new income tax plan. Apparently, those losses will make paying for public defense even harder.

Washington’s counties have long shouldered most of the cost of providing attorneys to criminal defendants who can’t afford them — a right guaranteed in the state constitution. This problem is ongoing. In 2023, the state Association of Counties sued the state, accusing the Legislature of shirking its duty to pay for those services. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Also, last year the state Supreme Court issued an order last year requiring public defenders to sharply reduce their caseloads. The new standards cut maximum felony and misdemeanor caseloads by roughly two-thirds. Counties have up to 10 years to fully comply, but must steadily reduce caseloads toward the new limits each year. Meeting those standards will more than triple public defense costs statewide, Young estimated.

My opinion? Public defenders continue to face funding issues. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

The Right To Counsel Does Not Also Include the Right to Coaching A Defendant Mid-Trial

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Villarreal v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a trial court, during a brief daytime break in the defendant’s testimony, may entirely prohibit defense counsel from communicating with the defendant.

This protects the truth-seeking function of the trial by preventing mid-testimony coaching.  However, during more extended overnight breaks in the defendant’s testimony, a trial court may only prohibit defense counsel from influencing or managing the defendant’s testimony, not from discussing other topics with the defendant such as the availability of witnesses, trial tactics, or plea bargaining.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

David Villarreal’s murder trial culminated with his own testimony. That testimony was interrupted by a 24-hour overnight recess, during which the trial judge instructed Villarreal’s attorneys not to “manage his testimony.” The judge clarified, however, that Villarreal was not prohibited from talking to his attorneys. The judge recognized Villarreal’s constitutional right to confer about certain topics, such as possible sentencing issues. Villarreal resumed his testimony 24 hours later and was subsequently convicted of murder. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the order was a permissible exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Villarreal appealed on arguments that his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel was violated by the trial court’s rulings.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinon of the Court. In short, she affirmed Villarreal’s murder conviction, holding that a qualified conferral order during an overnight recess — one that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony “for its own sake” while allowing consultation on other protected topics — does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

The Court framed the issue as a tension between two principles: the defendant’s fundamental right to counsel and the truth-seeking interest in preventing lawyer-influenced midstream alteration of sworn testimony. It treated the case as a middle ground between Geders v. United States, (overnight total ban invalid) and Perry v. Leeke, (brief daytime ban valid), emphasizing that those cases involved unqualified bans on attorney-client communication, whereas this case involved a content-limited restriction.

The majority’s rationale was that the line between Geders and Perry is “substantive, not merely temporal.” In other words, a testifying defendant retains a constitutional right to consult counsel about matters like trial strategy, plea decisions, and other issues beyond the testimony itself, but does not have a constitutional right to discuss ongoing testimony as such while still on the stand:

“The trial judge’s order here prohibited Villarreal’s lawyers from “managing” his “ongoing testimony.” This order permissibly balanced the truth-seeking function of the trial against Villarreal’s right to discuss protected topics with his lawyers—things like trial strategy, whether to consider a guilty plea, and factual information crucial to tactical decisions.”

“A court cannot prohibit a defendant from obtaining his attorney’s advice on whether and why he should consider a guilty plea, even if the “why” includes the impact of ongoing testimony on the trial’s prospects. But it may, like the court here did, prohibit discussion of testimony as such.” ~Justice Ketanji Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court

The Court analogized such orders to witness-sequestration principles adapted to the defendant’s special status. In doing so, the Court reasoned that forbidding only “managing” testimony permissibly balances constitutional rights with the trial’s truth-seeking function.

In its conclusions, the Court also rejected Villarreal’s request for a bright-line rule barring any overnight restriction, reasoning that a narrow no-testimony-discussion order is not the same as an overbroad prohibition on all attorney-client consultation.

With that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Villareal’s murder conviction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Homicide or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Law Enforcement Impersonators

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Governor Bob Ferguson signed a bill preventing individuals from posing as law enforcement with fake badges or other items with law enforcement insignia.

The Governor worked with Rep. Edwin Obras (D-Burien) and Sen. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground) to propose the legislation, House Bill 2165. The bill bans individuals who are not law enforcement from wearing, displaying or possessing badges or other law enforcement insignias. House Bill 2165 passed the House in a bipartisan 66-29 vote and passed the Senate 30-18.

WHY IS THIS LAW NECESSARY?

CNN found that there were more ICE impersonation incidents in 2025 than in the past four presidential administrations combined. This bill increases safety and accountability by ensuring that only legitimate officers identify themselves as law enforcement.

“If you’re not a law enforcement officer, it needs to be illegal to wear something that gives the impression that you are. This common-sense change in state law will make Washingtonians safer and hold imposters accountable.” ~Governor Bob Ferguson

“It’s just common sense and good community safety policy,” Rep. Obras said. “If you talk to someone you believe is a law enforcement officer, you should be able to trust that they, in fact, are who they say they are. These unprecedented times, in which federal officials are arresting and detaining members of our communities, require us to ensure those creating additional chaos are held accountable. We should all be worried about vigilantism, assault, or property crimes that become easier if someone impersonates a police officer. We are taking steps to prevent these crimes to ensure all communities are safe from harm.”

“ICE agents are stoking fear across Washington state and the country, while making us less secure,” Sen. Cortes said. “The FBI has warned of criminals posing as ICE officers and carrying out robberies, kidnappings, and sexual assaults in several states. This is unacceptable and erodes the public’s trust in law enforcement. House Bill 2165 is a critical step in helping us restore that trust so we can keep our communities safe.”

HB 2165 will:

  • Expand the definition of law enforcement to include all federal agents who enforce the laws of the United States and have the authority to detain people — including ICE.
  • Create the crime of false identification of a peace officer, which means;
  • Make a violation a gross misdemeanor, in line with existing law regulating criminal impersonation;
  • Limit the possession of items with law enforcement insignias on them, with an exception for items used in works of art, commentary, satire, and parody; and
  • Ensure legitimate law enforcement officers are clearly identifiable.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

FBI Crime Data Shows Washington Is The Second-Most Dangerous State

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

FBI crime data

Most Dangerous States to Raise a Family. SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Data Explorer

Washington has landed in the top five of a new list ranking the most dangerous states for neighborhood safety. Oregon came in at number four. The study, conducted by the Omega Law Group, placed Washington 5th overall after analyzing crime rates in residential areas and public parks across the country.

THE DATA

The study utilized crime data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to create two metrics: ‘violent crimes’ and ‘property crimes’. The metrics include data from eight different types of crime: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

In Washington, there were roughly 2,126 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents. When it comes to parks, the study found about 76 crimes per 100,000 people. Although Washington is 5th overall, it actually has a higher home crime rate than Oregon and Utah, which ranked just above the state on the total index.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, there were 1,601 home-related crimes for every 100,000 residents, with a park crime rate of nearly 97, the highest park crime rate of any state in the top ten, according to the research.

HOW DOES WA STATE COMPARE TO THE REST OF THE WEST?

The West Coast and Rocky Mountain regions dominated the top of the list. New Mexico took the number one spot as the most dangerous state by a wide margin, followed by Colorado, Delaware, and Utah. Apparently, the Northeast appears to be the safest region in America. New Jersey was ranked as the safest state for neighborhoods, followed closely by Maine and West Virginia.

While the Northeast consistently stays at the bottom of the rankings due to different policing strategies and community investments, states in the West continue to struggle with higher rates of residential and park-related incidents.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Case v. Montana: U.S. Supreme Court Addresses “Community Caretaking” Exception To The Warrant Requirement

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Community Caretaking, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (January 14, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (!) decided an interesting criminal case regarding the limits of the Community Caretaking Exception to warrant requirement. In short, Case v. Montana held that a police officer does not need Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion to believe an occupant is in need of emergency aid to enter a home without a warrant to render assistance.  Those standards are related to criminal investigations.  An officer need only have an “objectively reasonable basis” to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury to justify a warrantless intrusion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this case, Montana police officers responded to the home of William Case after his ex-girlfriend called 911 to report that he was threatening suicide and may have shot himself. The officers knocked on the doors and yelled into an open window, but got no response. They could see an empty handgun holster and something that looked like a suicide note inside, and they ultimately decided to enter the home to render emergency aid. When one officer approached a bedroom closet in which Case was hiding, Case threw open the closet curtain while hold ing an object that looked like a gun. Fearing that he was about to be shot, the officer shot and injured Case. An ambulance was called to take Case to the hospital, and officers found a handgun next to where Case had stood.

Mr. Case was charged with assaulting a police officer. Case moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the home entry. He argued that the police violated the Fourth Amendment by entering without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury found Case guilty. A divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the officers’ entry as lawful under Montana’s Community Caretaker Doctrine, rejecting the contention that an officer must have probable cause to believe that an occupant needs emergency aid.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The United States Supreme Court (hereinafter, “The Court”) began with a stare decisis analysis of Brigham City v. Stuart. In that case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. Applied here, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that Brigham City’s standard of review was satisfied in this case.

Next, the Court reasoned that although searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable, that requirement is subject to certain exceptions. Among those exceptions includes the need to render emergency assistance. Additionally, the Court raised and dismissed Mr. Case’s arguments that the Court should understand Brigham City as requiring police officers as requiring probable cause to enter a home in emergency situations. However, the Court declined to put a new probable cause spin onto the emergency-aid standard:

“Probable cause is peculiarly related to criminal investigations, and that body of law would fit awkwardly, if at all, in the non-criminal, non-investigatory setting at issue here,” said the Court. It reasoned that rather Brigham City asked simply whether an officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that entry was direly needed to prevent or deal with serious harm. “Courts should assess the reasonableness of an emergency-aid entry on its own terms, rather than through the lens generally used to consider investigative activity,” said the Court.

Finally, the Court reasoned that the officers here had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that their entry was needed to prevent Case from ending his life:

“The information the officers obtained from Case’s ex-girlfriend, combined with their observations at the scene, suggested that Case may already have shot himself or would do so absent intervention. The officers’ decision to enter his home to prevent that result was reasonable.” ~U.S. Supreme Court

Accordingly, the Court affirms the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.

My opinion? Essentially, this opinion rejects the defendant’s attempt to narrow the Court’s decision in Brigham City. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see the Court unanimously agree, even if the subject matter is not terribly complicated.

Similar to Montana, Washington State has its own Community Caretaking Exception (CCE) to the Warrant Requirement. Under State v. Harris, Washington’s CCE allows police to conduct warrantless searches or seizures when performing non-criminal, health, and safety functions, provided it is not a pretext for criminal investigation. This exception requires that officers have a reasonable, objective belief that assistance is needed, balancing privacy against public interest.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Mutually Violating No-Contact Orders With Protected Parties

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Domestic Violence, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

In State v. Veith, the WA Court of Appeals held that Washington’s second-degree burglary statute does not require a “nexus” between the unlawful entry and the crime the defendant intends to commit in the building.  Here, the defendant committed second degree burglary by (1) unlawfully entering a grocery store in violation of a trespass order, and (2) with the intent to commit the crime of violating a Domestic Violence No Contact Order, the defendant entered the store together with a protected person.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2023, a grocery store trespassed Mr. Veith from its premises. Ten days later, on August 27, Veith went to the store and bought groceries with his ex-spouse. The store’s loss prevention officer observed Veith grocery shopping on surveillance video and called the police. Later, police contacted Mr. Veith and his ex-spouse inside a van in the store parking lot. It was determined there was a no-contact order (NCO) prohibiting Veith from being in the presence of his ex-spouse. The State charged Veith with felony violation of a protection order—domestic violence and second degree burglary. At trial, the jury found Veith guilty as charged.

On appeal, Veith argued that the second degree burglary statute should be read as requiring a “nexus” between the unlawful entry into a building and the intent to commit a crime therein. However, the Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

First the COA explained that the second degree burglary statute sets forth the elements of second degree burglary: (1) entering or remaining unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or dwelling, and (2) with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. Next, the COA raised and dismissed Veith’s arguments that a “nexus” must exist:

“Nothing in the plain language of the second degree burglary statute requires a nexus between the unlawful entry and the crime being committed within the building and we cannot add words to the otherwise unambiguous plain language of the burglary statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the COA affirmed Mr. Veith’s conviction.

My opinion? This case reveals how seriously our courts consider cases involving DV and No-Contact Orders. It’s generally known that violating a no-contact or restraining order would result in a burglary charge if you unlawfully enter a protected person’s home or premises with the intent to commit a crime, such as assault or harassment. Nowadays, simply being in a public place with a protected party who mutually consents to violating the NCO right along with you can result in burglary charges.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Burglary, Domestic Violence or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Murder Rate Falls To Lowest Level In More Than a Century

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,
According to a report from the Council on Criminal Justice, the U.S. murder rate dropped sharply in 2025, reaching its lowest level since at least 1900. The data marks a dramatic reversal from the surge in violent crime seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Reported levels of 11 of the 13 offenses covered in this report were lower in 2025 than in 2024; nine of the offenses declined by 10% or more. Drug crimes were the only offense category that increased (+7%); sexual assault remained even.  
  • Looking at changes in violent offenses, the rate of reported homicides was 21% lower in 2025 than in 2024 in the 35 study cities providing data for that crime, representing 922 fewer homicides. There were 9% fewer reported aggravated assaults, 22% fewer gun assaults, and 2% fewer domestic violence incidents last year than in 2024. Robbery fell by 23% while carjackings (a type of robbery) decreased by 43%.  
  • When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents. That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record.
  • Examining changes in property crimes, motor vehicle theft had been on the rise from the summer of 2020 through 2023, but that trend began to reverse in 2024 and the pattern continued in 2025. There were 27% fewer motor vehicle thefts last year than in 2024 in the study cities. Reports of residential burglaries (-17%), nonresidential burglaries (-18%), larcenies (-11%), and shoplifting (-10%) all decreased in 2025 compared to 2024.  
  • Assessing trends over a longer period, violent crime overall in 2025 was at or below levels in 2019, the year prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice protests of 2020. There were 25% fewer homicides in the study cities in 2025 than in 2019. Aggravated assault (-6%), gun assault (-13%), sexual assault (-4%), domestic violence (-19%), robbery (-36%), and carjacking (-29%) also were lower in 2025 than in 2019.   
  • Lethality (the share of serious violent crime that is fatal) declined 8% in a sample of 18 cities from 2024 to 2025. From 2019 to 2025, lethality fell 5%. Cities with the highest pre-pandemic homicide levels experienced the largest drop in lethality from 2019 to 2025 (-36%). 
  • Non-violent crime trends have been varied over the last seven years. There were fewer residential burglaries (-45%), larcenies (-20%), and reported shoplifting incidents (-4%) in 2025 than in 2019, but more nonresidential burglaries (+1%) and motor vehicle thefts (+9%). Drug offenses in 2025 were 19% below 2019 levels. 
  • The declines in crime, especially homicide, are promising, and are likely the result of a complex tangle of broad social and technological changes and direct policy interventions. Determining a cause for the decline requires a rigorous examination of the data. This report is not evidence of a policy’s success or failure; it simply documents recent crime trends from a sample of large U.S. cities.  

The data suggest the steep rise in violence during 2020 through 2022 has fully receded. Since peaking during the pandemic era, homicide rates have steadily declined, falling below levels recorded in nearly every year since the early 1900s.

The findings land amid a political debate over crime and public safety. President Donald Trump has portrayed himself as a law-and-order leader, crediting federal crackdowns, including National Guard deployments and stricter immigration enforcement, for improving safety in major cities.

However, the report notes that violent crime was already falling to a two-decade low in the final year of President Joe Biden’s administration, raising questions about how much recent federal policies have influenced the trend. A White House spokesperson said the administration has taken a “whole-of-government” approach to crime reduction, while researchers cautioned against attributing the drop to any single factor.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Homicide, Manslaughter or any other crime crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.