Find Legal Information

Opinion Information Sheet

			

                                       No. 29564-8-III

       Sweeney, J. (dissenting)  --  We rarely conclude that counsel ineffectively 

represented an indigent defendant in a criminal case.  There are many different ways to 

try a case and counsel's decision to try the case one way rather than another does not 

render the decision wrong and the representation ineffective.  But the circumstances here 

lead me to conclude that counsel's failure to move for a bill of particulars amounts to 

ineffective assistance.  If granted, the order would have required the State to spell out 

which of Waymond Turner's two assaultive acts the State intended to rely on.  I conclude 

the failure amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel based on the way counsel elected 

to try this case.  

       Here was his objection: 

       Your Honor, the Assault 3 has been and always has been about whether or 
       not my client head butted [sic] this Corporal Lamens. . . . When, in fact, the 
       only thing that was ever represented in all of our discussions throughout the 
       entire case was whether or not my client head butted [sic] him at the car.

Report of Proceedings (Oct. 8, 2010) at 27.  

       Now, for me, it does not make any difference whether the lawyer just assumed that 

the State would rely on the head-butt to support the assault charge or whether the State 

affirmatively represented (misrepresented) that it would rely on the head-butt.  It was  

No. 29564-8-III
State v. Turner (dissent)

apparently an important part of the defense to that charge and a request for a bill of 

particulars would have cleared up any confusion and permitted the lawyer to structure his 

defense accordingly.  State v. Peerson, 62 Wn. App. 755, 768, 816 P.2d 43 (1991)

("[T]he purpose of the bill of particulars is to give the defendant sufficient notice of the 

charge so that he can competently defend against it.").  The purpose of a bill of 

particulars is to "amplify or clarify the particular matters essential to the defense."  State 

v. Holt, 104 Wn.2d 315, 321, 704 P.2d 1189 (1985).  The right to a bill of particulars is 

grounded in our constitution.  State v. Duffey, 97 Wn. App. 33, 43, 981 P.2d 1 (1999).  

The test is whether the State's information provides enough facts to defend against the 

charge and avoid surprise.  State v. Allen, 116 Wn. App. 454, 460, 66 P.3d 653 (2003).  

The failure to move to require a bill of particulars also waives any right to complain about 

the inadequacy of the facts in the information later on.  State v. Hayes, 81 Wn. App. 425, 

440, 914 P.2d 788 (1996); Holt, 104 Wn.2d at 320.   

       The information here charged:

              On or about the 16th day of June, 2010, in the County of Grant, 
       State of Washington, the above-named Defendant, did assault a law 
       enforcement officer or other employee of a law enforcement agency who 
       was performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; contrary 
       to the Revised Code of Washington 9A.36.031(1)(g). 

Clerk's Papers at 2.  Again, counsel proceeded on the assumption that the State would 

                                               2 

No. 29564-8-III
State v. Turner (dissent)

rely on the head-butt to show the assault.  Whether or not the State would so rely is not 

spelled out in the information.  A bill of particulars would have solved that problem and 

permitted counsel to adequately prepare a defense or encourage Mr. Turner to plead 

guilty to the charge.   

       I would reverse the conviction for third degree assault and remand for retrial on 

that charge.

                                               _________________________________
                                               Sweeney, J.

                                               3