 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Barrow2/11/2002
Louis Barrow was convicted by a jury of one count of second degree felony murder, one count of vehicular homicide and one count of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. In this appeal, Barrow contends that his murder and vehicular homicide convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The State concedes, and we agree, that Barrow has been punished twice for the same criminal act in violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, his conviction for vehicular homicide is vacated. But because the remaining issues presented lack merit, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
One morning, a homeowner contacted police after discovering a stranger in her home. A description of the suspect and the pickup truck he was driving was broadcast over police radio. A vehicle matching that general description was observed leaving the housing development where the home invasion had just occurred. Several marked patrol cars pulled in behind the suspect vehicle and activated their emergency equipment. Rather than stop, the pickup truck, which had been reported stolen earlier that same day, accelerated away from the pursuing police officers. During the subsequent high-speed chase, the truck drove through red lights and forced numerous other vehicles to take evasive action.
The pickup truck eventually collided with another vehicle. The driver of that car died at the scene from her injuries. Following the fatal collision, the driver of the pickup truck, later identified as Barrow, jumped out of the truck and ran up a steep embankment next to the roadway. After a brief foot pursuit, police apprehended Barrow.
Inside the abandoned pickup truck, police observed a pair of glasses that resembled the ones worn by the driver of the truck. The eyeglasses also appeared to match a pair of glasses worn by Barrow when he was booked into jail on an unrelated charge several weeks earlier.
During the course of the subsequent criminal investigation, warrants were obtained to search for incriminating evidence. The last of three search warrants authorized the seizure of Barrow's 'Medical Records' maintained by Washington's Department of Corrections (DOC). The reason for that search was explained in an affidavit filed in support of the warrant:
Barrow was incarcerated at Monroe and Shelton Penitentiaries in 1982, 1987, and 1993; the last was to have been a 90 month sentence at time of incarceration. As most of Barrow's time over the last five years appears to have been spent in custody, I feel it is probable that Barrow was fitted for glasses while in Department of Corrections care. Medical records for such care are maintained by Department of Corrections Medical Records section, and would allow comparison of prescription, model, and style of any eyeglasses issued to Barrow while incarcerated to the eyeglasses seized from the truck.
DOC eventually released an invoice for Barrow's prescription eyeglasses. None of Barrow's other medical records were ever disclosed. Thereafter, Barrow was charged with second degree felony murder, vehicular homicide, residential burglary, attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, and taking motor vehicle without permission.
Before trial, Barrow moved to suppress the invoice of Barrow's eyeglass prescription on grounds that the warrant was overbroad and invalid. Detective Onishi, the officer who drafted the challenged search warrant, testified at the CrR 3.6 suppression hearing. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that although the warrant authorizing the search of Barrow's medical records was overly broad, the State would have inevitably di
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|