Spokane7
58°
January 9, 2011 in City
Woman can’t shake felony’s impact
Appeals court says sentence too lenient for robbery while some call charge too severe
Attorneys Senit Lutgen and Deanna Crull are helping Kristin Bell.
(Full-size photo)
Kristin Bell had what she calls a moment of weakness that has turned into a 2 1/2-year legal nightmare and forced her to give up a dream of ever working as a grade-school teacher.
Bell, 24, admits that she foolishly stole $163 worth of items in 2008 from a craft store in Cheney. But it’s what happened on her way to her car that forever changed her life and sparked a legal debate that continues today.
“It’s just been such an ordeal,” said Bell, who is about three classes short of her degree, unemployed and recently had a son. “I obviously admitted I shoplifted and paid the fines for it. I don’t believe being charged with robbery was right at all. It’s been ridiculous.”
Because Bell bumped into a store manager who was trying to keep her from escaping to her car, Spokane County Deputy Prosecutor Dale Nagy charged Bell with second-degree robbery instead of the less-serious offense of theft, arguing that when she made physical contact with the store manager it constituted the use, or threatened use, of force.
A jury agreed, but Superior Court Judge Tari Eitzen expressed concern at sentencing that the standard punishment for robbery would be too severe for the circumstances of Bell’s case. Instead, Eitzen extended leniency by ordering the woman to serve 30 hours of community service rather than three to nine months in prison as mandated by state sentencing guidelines.
Prosecutors appealed and appellate judges last month returned the case to Eitzen for resentencing.
The case, and others like it, has raised questions within Spokane’s legal community as to whether justice is being served when prosecutors turn what appears to be a shoplifting case into a felony at the same time they complain to county commissioners and taxpayers that they are understaffed and overworked.
Prosecutors insist they’re simply upholding their duty to the law and that appeals serve to clarify important elements in the state’s criminal statutes.
But the Bell case, attorneys said, highlights the power prosecutors have to exercise discretion during their charging decisions.
Spokane attorney Senit Lutgen, who along with Deanna Crull represented Bell in the appeal filed by the county, said he agreed that shoplifting can certainly turn into robbery. But he argues that robbery charge didn’t “add up” in this case.
“I may be singing sour grapes, but there needs to be some other check and balance here. We pick this bill up as taxpayers,” Lutgen said. “We paid for the trial and now the appeal. For what purpose? For some girl who took some stuff. I want (prosecutors) to spend money on the truly evil people.”
According to court testimony, the manager and a sales clerk at Ben Franklin in Cheney followed Bell out of the store on June 2, 2008, after noticing her come in with an empty canvas bag and watching her leave with an obviously full bag.
The manager testified that he continually stepped in front of Bell, preventing her from walking to her car. As he stopped her progress, Bell and the manager bumped. Bell said her hands never came out of her pockets and the manager then ripped the canvas bag off her shoulder, causing her to fall and hurt her knee.
Later the same day, officers arrested Bell, who was a student at the time at Eastern Washington University, and charged her with second-degree robbery, which is a felony that requires a person to use force or the threat of force to take “personal property.” The statute also says that the level of force used “is immaterial.”
Bell, who had no prior felony convictions, spent more than a day in jail and waited a year before the case made it to trial in June 2009. A jury convicted her as charged.
Nagy, the deputy prosecutor, asked Judge Eitzen to sentence Bell to the standard range based on the 1981 Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). The prison term for someone with no criminal record under the sentencing guidelines would be three to nine months. But Eitzen refused, instead giving Bell what’s known as an exceptional downward sentence of just 30 hours of community service with no extra jail time.
Eitzen explained during the sentencing on Aug. 3, 2009, that it didn’t appear that Bell’s crime met the goals of the sentencing guidelines, which include a “just” punishment that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and offender’s criminal history.
Eitzen noted that there would have been no contact if the store manager had not initiated it by stepping in Bell’s way and that the case was “so far below the range of any other robbery I’ve seen” that it essentially was a shoplifting that went awry, according to court records.
“It’s become increasingly apparent over the last perhaps decade that the SRA was a horrible mistake,” Eitzen said, according to a court transcript. “The reason it’s seen now as being a horrible mistake is that you can’t put square pegs in round holes. And, we have more people in this country, more people incarcerated than anywhere else in the world per capita.
“We incarcerate people for everything, even small crimes … and the jails and prisons become one of the biggest costs of our society.”
But the case didn’t end there.
Instead, Deputy Prosecutor Mark Lindsey – at Nagy’s request – asked his superiors to appeal Eitzen’s sentence to the Division III Court of Appeals. That decision came down late last month, reversing Eitzen’s sentencing leniency and sending it back for reconsideration.
The opinion, written by appellate Judge Teresa Kulik, noted that the testimony shows that the contact between Bell and the store manager was “minor.”
“Because the charge of robbery makes the amount of force immaterial, the degree of force is not considered by the court when determining the presumptive range of the sentence,” Kulik wrote. “Therefore, the amount of force used could be a valid consideration potentially justifying a departure from the sentencing guidelines.”
However, Eitzen didn’t mention the minor use of force in her written or oral reasons for giving the exceptional sentence.
Spokane attorney Breean Beggs said Eitzen – who declined to comment because the case remains pending – can still give Bell the same sentence; she would just have to justify it better. But he, like Lutgen, questioned why prosecutors chose to make a stand in this case.
“We’ve been hearing in the media that the prosecutor’s office doesn’t have enough resources to do its job,” said Beggs, a local advocate for more police oversight. “Yet in this instance, they changed a misdemeanor to a felony. They took it to trial and then appeals. What a taxpayer would want to know is: What is the compelling reason to spend the resources in this case?”
Lindsey, who supervises the appeals unit, said Eitzen’s sentence was discussed with Prosecutor Steve Tucker and Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Jack Driscoll and “the decision was made that we needed to make sure the trial court was justified in its exceptional sentence.”
“In circumstances like that, we are charged as representatives of the people to make sure we have clarification that the Sentencing Reform Act is properly imposed,” Lindsey said.
Beggs said his reading of the robbery statute gives prosecutors a wide berth in charging options because of the phrase “force or threat of force.” Beggs noted that the state has another law that gives store owners the right to reasonably detain people they suspect of shoplifting.
“If you are simply trying to get away from someone who is trying to grab you, that force can transform a shoplifting into a robbery,” he said. “But this is where prosecutors get to use their discretion and use our resources effectively.”
James Wyer, 68, served on the jury that convicted Bell. He said the only contact he remembers was from the store manager ripping the bag off Bell’s shoulder.
“I thought it should have been theft,” Wyer said. “But some of the other people thought there was force or the threat of force. The paper the judge gave us defined everything. When I saw the paper that said ‘force used or threat of force then it’s robbery,’ that’s why I voted that way.”
Wyer later learned that Eitzen gave Bell 30 hours of community service. “I thought it was a pretty reasonable sentence,” Wyer said.
Bell, too, supported Eitzen’s sentence.
“I was really relieved just simply because someone finally saw I wasn’t trying to hurt anyone and that I’m not a bad person,” she said.
Now Bell – who has spent about $13,000 in legal fees including repaying the cost of the merchandise – is waiting to find out if she’ll have to do time. She still hopes to finish her degree in art history with a minor in sociology, but she’s taking time off to care for her newborn. Every day, she wishes she had made a different decision in the store.
“I was scared and I left,” she said. “If I had just stayed there … I still would have had a chance to be a teacher.”
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
ZagChuck on January 09 at 1:36 a.m.
If I snatch someone’s purse from their hand in downtown Spokane, but I don’t touch them or hurt them, is that just a theft as well? NO! The law is, what the law is. The charge was appropriate.
Perhaps the law could be changed, but that is NOT the role or duty of the court. We have 3 branches of government for a reason. Equal rights and equal protection under the law also includes equal punishment for violating the law.
We must stop using emotions as a way around the facts and a way around the consequences for our actions. This article is clearly designed to tug emotional strings, but is weak on the facts of the case.
In this case she didn’t shoplift the stuff, she took it by force. It’s in the court records (which the author either didn’t do or decided not to include) She didn’t just “bump” the store manager, she repeatedly charged him until she was able to force her way out of the store. Shoplifters hide stuff and run away. When caught, they are compliant and are charged with shoplifting. Instead, when she was caught, she forced her way out of the store. Thus, when apprehended she was charged appropriately.
Perhaps we, as a society, should be actually standing up and demanding more people comply with our laws, instead of standing up with the criminals and trying to decide how best to let them circumvent the laws. Once people begin to understand their actions have consequences, they actually tend to modify their behavior.
If we continue to teach our young people they don’t have to suffer the consequences of their own actions, as long as they have a good excuse or tear jerking sob story, then we will continue to be plagued by defendants in court who believe they should be treated differently because of their own personal goodness.
Under the premise given here, if I violate the letter of the law, but just barely, it should be okay to charge me with a lesser offense.
drywitt99 on January 09 at 1:48 a.m.
“Once people begin to understand their actions have consequences, they actually tend to modify their behavior.”
Yeah Chuck….unless they are a an off-duty Spokane cop.
ZagChuck on January 09 at 1:56 a.m.
@ Dry-wittless
Try to stay on topic. That case has no bearing on this case what-so-ever. I have weighed in on that on the other post. The Officer should not have an LE job. .
In full disclosure, I reviewed the case more closely and determined the assault on the store manager actually occurred outside the store, as Bell forced her way to her car door, in the process ripping the canvas bag in which she had stashed the stolen items. She did not force her way out of the store as I previously stated.
mikeln on January 09 at 2:36 a.m.
A felony is a life sentence, it means less access to good jobs and a life of poverty. In a country filled with christians who are supposed to be so forgiving it seems we have a lot of unforgiving going on.
ZagChuck on January 09 at 3:04 a.m.
Actions have consequences. It really is that simple. The consequences act as a deterrent. She should have thought of the consequences BEFORE committing the crime.
drywitt99 on January 09 at 3:14 a.m.
Chucky,
There is a connection between the two cases:
Each has someone doing something they shouldn’t.
And your outrage seems perfectly in balance.
Ignoring the significant fact that shoplifting and “bumping” into someone standing in front of you PALES in comparison to an off duty cop drinking and driving……..being involved in a motor vehicle accident…….and then driving away!!
Also, are Spokane Police officers, allowed, encouraged or required to carry a weapon while off duty?
It varies in different jurisdictions. And I was just wondering if he was packin’ heat???
You seem perfectly willing to throw the book at this stupid young lady…..and perfectly willing to throw up your hands in despair regarding this drunken violent, corwardly jerk…..concluding he
“,,, should not have an LE job.”
Ya think????
Wow….your outrage at him is palpable.
ZagChuck on January 09 at 3:57 a.m.
Dry witt,
We need to have the rule of law and the order that comes with it; else we wind up with chaos or anarchy.
I’m not outraged at either person or either situation. In both cases I urge people to follow the law, and to contact the APPROPRIATE branch of government if they’d like to change the law. That branch is the legislative branch. I encourage folks who disagree with the courts opinions one way or the other to remember during the next election cycle.
Here’s the deal: In the theft case, the local court stepped out of line with the law, and issued a sentence that was overturned by the higher court. It was overturned because it did not follow the law. I’m not asking anyone to “throw the book” at anyone. The minimum sentence is fine by me. She was given an overly light sentence. Sentencing guidelines were designed to prevent sentencing disparity based on a number of factors. Upholding the guidelines helps to ensure equality in sentencing. I stating the appropriate charge was used in this case. It is not the role of the executive or judicial branch to MAKE the laws, merely to enforce and interpret them.
If someone wants to CHANGE the law, or the manner in which it is enforced, the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to address.
In the Officer DUI case, the local court did what it was supposed to, as did the defendant. He fulfilled the obligations to the court for his offense (I’m not sure why, but the Hit and Run portion of the charge was dropped). It could be argued by bleeding heart ACLU liberal types that losing his job would be double jeopardy; but I wouldn’t make that argument. I believe the hiring agency (SPD in this case) should be allowed to terminate the officer, but again the higher courts have consistently said it cannot be done.
Again, we must have the rule of law and the order that comes with it
How each individual “feels” about each case is an issue for the ballot box. In both cases, individuals can elect or re-elect the judges, justices, and representatives they see fit based upon their position on these and many other issues.
Mr_Bloggy on January 09 at 5:16 a.m.
Tucker passes on the police murderers of Zehm but gets all focused and tough on this lady and the ridiculous overcharging of her by one of his lightweight prosecutors. Spokane, you only have yourself to blame for reelecting this hack.
Sadbuttrue on January 09 at 5:20 a.m.
(I’m not sure why, but the Hit and Run portion of the charge was dropped).
Um….I’ll bite! Because he is a cop and above the law?.
It is a double standard. Spin it to your hearts content, but it is what it is. Just like the prosecutor could have similarly used his “discretion” to charge the young lady with a misdemeanor.
For civilians, “discretion” inevitably means harsh charges with harsh outcomes that permanently devastate lives. For cops, “discretion” means dismissing charges so that a cop’s life is affected minimally, if at all.
DHF on January 09 at 5:57 a.m.
In the judicial system you have different rules that apply to each person and the outcome will vary in each situation. It’s called Unequal Justice Under The Law. Like it or not that’s how it is. Live with it.
luludesevilla on January 09 at 7:02 a.m.
This is nothing more than Deputy Prosecutor Mark Lindsey and others in his office trying to make a name for themselves in order to further their careers. This has nothing what so ever to do with justice. It’s all about his record of convictions nothing more.
Albert on January 09 at 7:33 a.m.
“Selective Prosecution” is the response of course. Example: in June of this past year, a local well known political was stealing rhubarb from my 90 year old neighbor’s front yard. When she confronted him, he came at her with an 18” carving knife. I came to the scene and asked this idiot what he was doing. He then turned from his attack on my neighbor and came at me with this same carving knife. 3 witnesses, a full police report, to include armed robbery and Tucker did not file charges, nor did the City Attorney. The reason? A big mouth - long time politician was the thief and assailant.
Selective enforcement. Here is a “bump” with a shoplift and a felony is pursued. Ridiculous to be sure.
A 90 year old - stroke prone - unarmed lady is deprived of her crop at knife point. Another unarmed neighbor is also threatened at knife point and nothing will be filed.
Justice? What is Justice?
SpokaneLiberal on January 09 at 7:51 a.m.
ZagChuck
How does it make sense to send a young mother to prison for 3-6 months? The goods cost 163$. As a society we are already into this at least 30 grand. If we put her in Jail for 6 months, put the kid into foster care we are going to be into this case to the tune of 120-200 grand. The judge - who has presumably seen several robbery cases called this overcharged and an aberration.
You want to know one of the things that is destroying society. We are sending people to long prison terms for relatively small things. This gives law enforcement relatively high unchecked power. Then we pay tens or hundreds of thousands for their imprisonment. Then when they get out the can’t get a job because they have to disclose their felony. Thus they are poor with no options but more crime and food stamps. All along the way we miss opportunities to do anything but punish to create deterrence that doesn’t work.
Why wasn’t the manager charged with felony assault for ripping the bag off her shoulder - which knocked her down injuring her knee? I mean the law is the law right? We all have to play and be charged by the law equally….
No - we know or should know that sometimes what is legal is wrong and what is illegal is not wrong. It is illegal to run a light or stop sign - but it isn’t wrong if you are doing so to avoid an accident or save a life. It was illegal to help a fugitive slave but it wasn’t wrong. It may be legal for deputy Heitzel to shoot a pastor on his property but it was still wrong.
They may have had the option of charging her with a felony and sending her to prison but that doesn’t make it right. It makes it even less right to appeal like they have.
SpokaneLiberal on January 09 at 7:55 a.m.
Albert can you refer us to anything we can check online to see any information about the situation you mention?
hunternomore on January 09 at 8:03 a.m.
ZagChuck—rule of law; order? Really? Seriously. On the other hand, anyone who has lived in Spokane for any length of time should know better than to get involved with the legal system in this “town”.
lewis8457 on January 09 at 8:05 a.m.
equal justice under the law should also cover police but it doesn’t they are above the law.
Yes i see the prosecutor is getting tough on young ladies lately, why is that do you suppose? Maybe one of them is a wife beater and likes to hurt young ladies.
While a cop can murder a man with a rock in his hand.
dbcoolcars on January 09 at 8:07 a.m.
I believe the sentence given her was justified by the judge for the crime committed. She did steal product from the store, bumped the store manager but did not physically try to hurt anyone. The problem with our society today is the lack of human compassion. She got to pay $13000 for the crime and I think she learned her lesson well. A felony should not be hung over her head for the rest of her life so she can not find a job to support her child. Not everything is by the book as we well are aware of. And I do agree we can use our resources in better ways than to poor more money into this fruitless case. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bszottlinger on January 09 at 8:29 a.m.
ZagChuck:
I’m trying to make some sense of your arguments here regarding your office. If I recall correctly you in the past have defended a litany of what I consider very questionable plea arrangements in cases involving gang members and even individuals involved in murder. The basis for your defense of these plea deals was primarily that the prosecutorial discretion involved in making the deals was necessary in the “interest of justice”, even though a very bad criminal may not be subjected to “the letter of the law” and punished to the extent that they should have been, in order to get the real, real bad guys it was necessary to make a deal. If these plea deals, including the recent issue with Thoma are in the interest of justice, how do you square those with this particular case.
Perhaps you could explain to the folks just exactly what prosecutorial discretion involves, and why it is an important and necessary element of the criminal justice system.
D Statler on January 09 at 8:42 a.m.
I hope Judge Eitzen does the right thing and clarifies her position to justify the lesser sentence.The compassion should have been used in the prosecutors office before it went to trial. Unfortunately, Judge Eitzen has a track record of bowing or caving to the coersions exerted by the Prosecutors office.She sees and recognizes these extrordinary situations.Makes statements like “square pegs in round holes”, “victims of the perfect storm”,”I suppose those thirteen prosecutors in my courtroom were sharks smelling the scent of blood in the water”, then fails to take a stand.
There could be no more of a powerful statement that something is wrong with the system than a Judge addressing and changing it.It is obvious the sentencing guidlines are wrong.The Sentencing Guideline Commission has failed to change with the times.Judge Eitzen could get off her chair and try to fix these problems instead of crying about them.
There is a pattern of over charging in the prosecutors office. They pile on the charges to coerce a plea to a lesser charge.This is the lazy way to do an inferrior job.There are too many DEALS being made and not enough real work in the prosecutors office.One mentions “checks and balances” for the prosecutors office. Judge Eitzen appears to be the last hope for any checks and balances for Kristen Bell.
The voters in Spokane failed to balance the situation last November during the elections.Lets hope that things change during the next elections.COMPASSION! COMPASSION!
berrybestfarm on January 09 at 8:45 a.m.
I consider myself to be a reasonable and moderate citizen who tries to look at all sides. In this case I agree whole heartedly with SpokaneLiberal’s comments. The law in effect at the time is not always right, just or moral. Those who harp about the “rule of law” need to remember that all rights and freedoms belong to the people. The legislative system and checks and balances we have in place are not above our right to say “you got this one wrong and we will not comply”. Almost always we should not take the law into our own hands. But like everything else in real life their are exceptions. And yes, we are spending way too much of our financial and social resources condeming minor offesnse.
tomnsahl on January 09 at 9:29 a.m.
Sad commentary Chuck & Witt - put away the rulers, stop the silly egoic pontificating and discuss the issues in THIS story!
Those who have anti law enforcement agendas sully the discourse this forum was created for … sighhhhhhhh
Congratulations to Judge Eitzen for FAIRNESS in sentencing.
Ms. Bell committed (and was convicted by a jury of) ROBBERY. All our choices and actions have lifetime consequences. By hers, she has forfeited her right to many careers BUT that was HER choice … there are many other jobs open to her when and if she stops acting like the victim.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 09 at 9:47 a.m.
It is all part of “Bread and Circus’s” the decline of the Empire (Inland one).. J
bszottlinger on January 09 at 9:57 a.m.
Tom Sahlberg:
First let me point out that I am very pro law enforcement. Now, at the sake of “egoic pontificating’ ( a phrase likely learned at a far south hill high school) let me agree with you in this way. Ms. Bell did the wrong thing. The Jury did the right thing. Judge Eitzen did the right thing. However the issue before us in this matter is quite simply, did the prosecutor do the right thing.
liz7315 on January 09 at 10:09 a.m.
You know everyone makes mistakes. I had a bad year when I was younger and was charged with two misdameanors one assult and one possesion of marijuana. I did commit the assult but because there was a party at my house and someone had brought marijuana and no one fessed up when the police came I was charged with it. It has been six years and it still haunts me today I have been trying to find work as a caregiver and I am repeadtedly turned down becuase of those charges. Really our choices affect us and will for a long time. One more year I will be able to apply to have thouse charges expunged but until then……………………………………….
keithj on January 09 at 10:11 a.m.
The most sickening thing about this story is that we just had an election two months ago and the people of Spokane re-elected the boss of these two prosecutors.
America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
terrymr on January 09 at 10:41 a.m.
the judge should gave tossed the robbery charge rather than leavingbthe jury to figure it out.
Kivaari on January 09 at 10:46 a.m.
Remind anyone of the Christmas shopper at Nordstrom’s?
JBlim on January 09 at 11:17 a.m.
and if she had been somehow wrongfully been convicted of kidnapping instead of shoplifting and given a life sentence then the tough guy knuckleheads would still say “oh, well, she should have thought of that before committing the crime.”
Albert on January 09 at 11:24 a.m.
Spokane: On the “knife boy”, Bart Haggin, the case number is 10-188305 and the Officer was Braun #647. If that helps you??
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 09 at 11:39 a.m.
Vote “Frank Malone” for prosecutor… :)) we tried, oh yes we did…. straight line party votes precluded a change of leadership… j
Ninch on January 09 at 11:41 a.m.
Uh… a person who had a “weak” moment wants to be a teacher? Hilarious that she thinks she should get a pass. On top of that she uses her new baby as an excuse (single parent?)…and is not responsible enough to have work to support the baby. Why are there so many bleeding hearts for her bad choices?
BTW: A felony conviction does not prevent getting employment, and after 10 years one does not even need to report such a conviction. They even give you a space on employment applications to “explain” the circumstances. I myself would never hire such a person because she apparently has not truly owned up to her bad behavior. She would be the kind of employee who would always makes excuses for her “mistakes.”
Note: In my whole life I never even considered shoplifting or theft, but one of my roommates spent a night in jail for taking toothpaste from Rosauers… even though she could have paid for it. Lots of people steal for the thrill in addition to the goods. And I would have definitely quit trying to walk to my car after I was discovered by the store manager. What kind of denial is that?
plaza on January 09 at 11:48 a.m.
Geez,
Isn’t this the same Deanna that cried through an interview for her adopted children whose father died from cancer and the kids may have the same problem? Hmmmm…..whatever happened to those kids? The last name is different but I definately recognize that face! I guess defending losers is much more financially rewarding then taking care of adopted kids. Peace!
bszottlinger on January 09 at 11:56 a.m.
Plaza:
I just flagged your post, hope they take it off.
plaza on January 09 at 12:03 p.m.
bszottlinger,
whatever! The truth hurts!
plaza on January 09 at 12:09 p.m.
I’ll add that the Spokesman Review did the article on her and the children. May be a good follow up article for the SR to do.
DavidBray on January 09 at 12:26 p.m.
Zagchuck,
Your perspective is very narrow. You say that, “we MUST follow the rule of Law and the order that comes with it”. That’s just silly. The “rule of law” doesn’t really guarantee anything close to the, “order that comes with it”, except in the eyes of those that write the law! China has some strong laws, as does Russia, the Taliban and best of examples, Sharia Law. Where you can break a boys arm and maim him for stealing a loaf of bread, or kill and butcher women, etc, etc.
The LAW is NOT the be all and end all of ways to control the behavior of citizens. What you, and nearly everyone who preaches the infallibility and strict enforcement of the law exclude from your reasoning…..is the pursuit of JUSTICE.
I sometimes suspect that the Law is sacred in our society to those who couldn’t function without it, because they have no concept of the difference between right and wrong. That would include both lawbreakers and law enforcers.
west on January 09 at 12:33 p.m.
And Eddy Ray Hall with 80 convictions in and out of prosecutors dockets…seems harsh for this woman, touching the store manager. Robbery?? B.S.! Lame prosecutors….out of touch with the world..
davidjskjonsby on January 09 at 1:09 p.m.
Are there not any “rational” lawyers left in Spokane?
Someone, for Pete’s sake, help this woman get her case in
front of Division III, Court of Appeals for a fair hearing.
Those of us who have overturned and set aside Spokane
County ‘felonies’ enjoy watching the Don Brockett’s and
Al Gauper’s crawl back under their respective rocks when
they are reversed. Not to worry, once overturned Spokane
Prosecutors dare not retry. The damage they inflict lasts
longer than a lifetime.
tomnsahl on January 09 at 1:12 p.m.
lol zott …
Nice try and thanks for editorializing your affirmation and making my point about egoic :))
BTW - Ferris and WSU grad, lifetime Spokane homeboy here
Hey Dave - good to hear you preach anarchy again
Sincerely, “with liberty and justice for all”
SpokaneLiberal on January 09 at 1:22 p.m.
thanks albert
SpokaneLiberal on January 09 at 1:25 p.m.
Albert is there an approximate date. I am really intrigued by this but am having trouble getting the more information I want.
misjustice on January 09 at 2:04 p.m.
You do the crime? Well, you do the time. Plain & simple.
Albert on January 09 at 2:08 p.m.
Spokane…it was the first part of June 2010. Hope this helps. This fellow needs to be stopped before he goes off again.
misjustice on January 09 at 2:09 p.m.
What ever happened to the saying “let the punishment fit the crime”?
bszottlinger on January 09 at 2:37 p.m.
Tom52:
We all can sure tell you are the product of a public school education. I believe you meant “memorializing” rather than “editorializing”. I’m a bit surprised you rich south hill kids that went to Ferris including Doug Clark never have been able to express yourself without trying to come up with some superfluous verbiage or phraseology to try and fool us eastsiders.
Well it didn’t work then and it doesn’t now! :)
Romans13 on January 09 at 3:06 p.m.
How many of you have actually read the police reports? Talked to the witnesses? Owned a business that you paid for and had people steal from it?
You read an article that is 80% from the defendant’s point of view, where the criminal cries, “I’m the victim”, and most of you fall hook, line and sinker.
She made a decision to become a teacher, and after making that decision, stole something that didn’t belong to her, then tried to leave without returning the product, and is now claiming she is the victim. That’s why we have people that keep crying, “I’m the victim.” Because of the types of people on this post that encourage the behavior. My hope for you is that she will do to you what she did to that business, then when you try to stop her from stealing something YOU worked for, she just keeps leaving.
As far as the judge, ZagChuck is right on. Judges overstep their boundaries when they legislate from the bench. This was not the judges role in a case where the defendant was tried by a jury of her peers. Change the law in Olympia, not from a random decision by a random judge who feels free to randomly legislate from the bench.
For those of you who have to have the last word, why don’t you read an article where both sides are allowed to present an EQUAL portion of their perspective, and maybe even TRY READING the reports, before you rush off into judgment.
geoson on January 09 at 3:21 p.m.
I am impressed by a judge who trys to apply a penalty that fits the crime. It should have imput from the victim as they felt she was a prior offender.
Standard guidelines are great for making it easy on judges to apply penalties, but the goal is not to never reward repentance, ie not repeating the offense, but stop a repeat of the offense. We have penalties for repeat offenders.
The prosecutor may be correct in asking for a clarification of the below guidelines punishment. That was the goal of getting a standard. I agree with the judges ruleing as it seems to meet society goals.
The thing that concerns me is the proscecutors not chosing to refer to the courts the offense my mother endured when a person was stealing rubard from our property and when confronted bandished a weapon and advanced on her. A neighbor came to her aid and was also turned on. The person then took the rubarb and left. The neighbor then came to the aid of my 90 year old mother who was shaken up (Thanks Albert).
misjustice on January 09 at 3:29 p.m.
Where were these “super” Prosecutor’s when my house was broken into and over $8000.00 worth of valuables stolen?
Two of my neighbors saw the loser that did it and signed affidavits attesting to what they witnessed. After the quick response of the police and their investigation into the robbery (which I applaud) the Prosecutor decided that there wasn’t enough “evidence” to proceed past the initial arraignment of the thief, so he was let go.
The Prosecutor on the case determined that the case would be too difficult to continue and that they likely would not get a conviction so they dropped the case. Why? Why? Why? Why?
Because the thief managed to persuade 3 people to lie about his whereabouts on the morning of the break in and theft. And I only had 2 people which witnessed the crime and were willing to tell the truth.
I have no faith in the Prosecutor’s office. And these recent “over” charging cases leave me totally stunned.
geoson on January 09 at 3:34 p.m.
I will add that the rubarb thief was the same person I had caught a few years before taking rubarb and made him pay for it. He had a smaller knife and did not advance on me.
The difference this time was his reaction and the bandishment of a mach larger weapon.
JBlim on January 09 at 4:11 p.m.
Well, I wouldn’t hire a known shoplifter to teach my kids. But that doesn’t mean she deserves to be a felon unless she really committed a felony, not some smart alec or hyper technical interpretation of what constitutes felonious conduct. Getting a teaching job is plenty hard, we don’t need to lower ourselves into recruiting from the ranks of petty criminals.
yellowcat on January 09 at 4:20 p.m.
A person with a felony often pays for the rest of their life. She served her time. There comes a point when one should be able to go on with their life and be done with their past. Have most of us not made mistakes that we could have been arrested for? We complain about recidivism. Yet a felon won’t be hired by 75% of employers (true!), can’t get housing (screened out by background checks) and can’t get school loans. Do we want to commit people to a lifetime of crime because they have no other options? We incarcerate at a rate higher than ANY country in the world; incarcerate at a rate seven times higher than Europe. The charge seems onerous in this case and many many others.
misjustice on January 09 at 4:38 p.m.
Albert, as I said, the police officer which responded to my case and the detectives which did the investigation were diligent in the way they handled the robbery. They found the thief, cuffed him and stuffed him. And THEN the “prosecutor” let him go.
I heard a few years ago (the robbery happened in 2001) that he’d progressed to stealing guns and reselling them…a real stand up guy.
The “over” charging in the young lady’s case is wrong on so many levels. Again, what ever happened to the adage, “let the punishment fit the crime”?
misjustice on January 09 at 6:08 p.m.
******We all can sure tell you are the product of a public school education. ***********
That is a slap in the face to all those that didn’t have the nice private schools apparently bszottinger had the privilege of getting. Looking down his nose on the rest of the world?
Also. I posted this before but had the person’s name in the post & it was deleted. If Albert wants to continue posting Mr. **** name on this board, I think I will contact him and tell him Albert is slandering his name all over the internet. Mr. **** was not arrested nor convicted of a crime but Albert is trying to smear his name. The SR should be careful what they allow to stay on this board. Slander is a terrible thing to witness & be a part of!
Albert on January 09 at 6:32 p.m.
With all respect Gramma, their IS a formal crime report filed, replete with witnesses and victims. This crime report IS public record and you may obtain a copy of this PUBLIC RECORD with “knife boy’s” name therein. I am NOT slandering anyone - I am simply reporting the facts AS A VICTIM OF AN ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON by Mr. Haggin. Period - no slander - just facts. There would be far more public record IF the prosecutor would do their job.
These are FACTS not slander. A crime has been duly committed and not prosecuted. Please take the time to read the facts before you render baseless judgment. Period.
jsmurray31 on January 09 at 6:34 p.m.
Same prosectors office who allowed a plea agreement of 45 days for pleading guilty to 2nd degree rape of a child. Just appalling.
bszottlinger on January 09 at 6:54 p.m.
Jumping Jiminy Gramma I was just kidding. When I was in high school, Ferris High School had not even been built (and the world was better for it). I just happened to attend a much better short south hill high school for a couple of years. Please forgive me if you were offended by my comment but you have to admit sometimes Ferris High School ( a public school) products just don’t make any sense. Just read Doug Clark’s column some time. I just know you didn’t go to Ferris you make to much sense all the time, except you are a little hard to follow when you confuse Kirkpatrick with “Fitzpatrick”. That’s okay though I can still follow you. I had to learn quickly in those expensive Ivy League schools how to follow and understand those professors who, like you, were on a far superior intellectual plane then I was.
empyrius on January 09 at 6:55 p.m.
One packs their bag full of goodies, refuses to give back said items to the manager, continues on her way, and then expects to only get a misdemeanor???
And then wants to be a teacher????
Har har har har
misjustice on January 09 at 6:58 p.m.
Any “public” record you pay for will have names blacked out. The only name in a report you pay for will be yours. I have paid for reports & ALL names are blackened if it isn’t your name. Even if you are the one that filed the report.
And it is slander when a person has not been convicted of something & someone else keeps trying to smear that persons name in public saying they did something against the law. As you said, the police/prosecutor did not/would not press charges & just because you say it happened doesn’t mean that it did.
You are walking a fine line………..
misjustice on January 09 at 7:02 p.m.
slan·der
[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object)
5. to utter or circulate slander.
**************
def·a·ma·tion [def-uh-mey-shuhn] –noun
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion Pronunciation: “de-f&-‘mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person —see also LIBEL, SLANDER New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section —compare DISPARAGEMENT, FALSE LIGHT, SLANDER OF TITLE
2 : a defamatory communication defamation is a publication
misjustice on January 09 at 7:02 p.m.
“The case, and others like it, has raised questions within Spokane’s legal community as to whether justice is being served when prosecutors turn what appears to be a shoplifting case into a felony at the same time they complain to county commissioners and taxpayers that they are understaffed and overworked.”
I’d argue that more “felony” convictions on a “prosecutor’s” record equals a better political chance at running for higher office. Hey, we all want “prosecutors” that are TOUGH ON CRIME; so if they can chalk up lots of “felony” convictions they can tout their record come election time…
I wonder how many hours have been expended by the “prosecutor’s” office on the case of Ms. Bell?
bszottlinger on January 09 at 7:02 p.m.
Gramma:
Gosh I hate to correct you but I think you might be thinking of libel rather than “slander”. There is a difference, which I learned at one of those expensive private schools.
bszottlinger on January 09 at 7:05 p.m.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
bszottlinger on January 09 at 7:15 p.m.
Justy:
How about this theory and it is just that because I don’t know. The prosecutors are tired of Judge Eitzen continually going under the SRA when she feels it is appropriate so to try and send a message and at the expense of Ms. Bell they appeal the sentence.
Right on about felony convictions it’s the old 10/2 game charge 10 plead 2 and you get two marks for doing next to nothing.
misjustice on January 09 at 7:22 p.m.
Brad, I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head regarding Judge Eitzen.
And regarding slander, that cheap state public university that I went to taught us that slander is the spoken word while libel is the written word. Also, that the defense to either is the TRUTH.
bszottlinger on January 09 at 7:28 p.m.
Justy:
That’s my understanding, but sometimes my understanding of things parallels Star Trek The Old Generation!
Alfredo on January 09 at 8:46 p.m.
If I’m not mistaken (I’m not a lawyer), to claim defamation you must prove that you’ve been harmed in some way (in other words, hurt feelings do not apply).
lyric21 on January 09 at 9:23 p.m.
to MikeIn, we can FORGIVE her and still not want her to teach our kids or any kids for that matter. She planned ahead to break the law and went into the store with an empty tote. Says a lot about her (lack of) judgment and character. And don’t form your opinion on just this article, read the whole police report.
PlanB on January 09 at 9:30 p.m.
Judge Eitzen did the right thing in this case and the prosecutors reaction is just another case of bizarre and unexplainable behavior.
D Statler on January 09 at 9:52 p.m.
The same prosecutors office that finds it legal to tamper with(program) witnesses.The same prosecutors office that makes deals to give violent offenders light sentences for testimony,true or fabricated.I am saddened to see the public image of our prosecutors continue to tarnish from this type of behavior.10-2 sounds about right!
nslopeofw on January 09 at 10:06 p.m.
I wonder what people here would say if the schools did hire her, and she got caught ripping them off. What with a prior and all, most would think it a no brainer, and blame the school for not checking her background better, or for hiring her knowing she was a convicted robber.
She chose to commit the crime. She got caught. Yes, she paid her “debt”, and i believe that is good, but if it really wasnt a felony, then all would have been dropped years ago.
My problem with the whole thing is that once a criminal “pays their debt” to society, it should be done. Other than stipulations such as not owning guns anymore, etc, it should not be something that follows them for the rest of their lives. People do change.
bszottlinger on January 09 at 10:43 p.m.
Alfredo:
In short truth trumps, and in a defamation of character litigation one of the first elements the plaintiff has to prove is that he/she had a good one to begin with. One of the big reasons I could never bring a defamation suit.
thatsjarrod on January 09 at 11:05 p.m.
“Eitzen noted that there would have been no contact if the store manager had not initiated it by stepping in Bell’s way”
Oh sorry mrs. criminal, thats my fault for stepping in your way! Have we all gone mad? And groceries are one thing, but how entitled do you need to feel before you rob a craft store?
mdriftmeyer on January 09 at 11:19 p.m.
How about we hire less Gonzaga Law School graduates at the Spokane District Attorney’s office and pull from other states to give a broader field of experience to the team?
You’d be surprised how that would improve the office, make it more respected and focused on Law, not on processing case loads.
If the bulk of attorneys from King County Prosecutor’s office graduated from the University of Washington, you’d have to question the narrow scope of staff.
nannette on January 09 at 11:53 p.m.
Tucker?
Yates and Zehm.
Sadbuttrue on January 10 at 6:08 a.m.
Prosecutors have special, and oh-so-convenient rules that prohibit the jury from knowing the full costs of their voting one way or another. Do you think a jury would have convicted this woman if they had been told that a robbery conviction would cost the State of Washington many millions of dollars? Dollars that it does not have right now?
What if a prosecutor was forced by rule to announce to a jury that a guilty verdict would cost the State of Washington, say, five million dollars and would require the firing of 20 teachers?
Obviously, those kind of decisions based on that kind of information are routine in many other situations. Obviously, the drunk driving cop, conveniently, received the benefit of that kind of analysis outside of the presence of the jury several times on several different levels.
No cop lover on this thread so far has expressed outrage over the dismissal of the leaving the scene charge. I wonder why?
Maybe they are still smarting from the lashing they received in Arizona v. Gant, where the US Supreme Court brusquely denounced and eliminated what it termed to be a “law enforcement” entitlement.
mikeln on January 10 at 9:24 a.m.
Experience is the best teacher, this person has experienced the trouble one can cause to themselves by making bad decisions and should be given every chance at a succesfull life. Anything short of this is not forgivness, just an excuse.
Racingmom on January 10 at 4:18 p.m.
What a waste of resources - just my opinion. I have to give a hand to Superior Court Judge Tari Eitzen for standing up and saying so. I work in the criminal justice field and have seen way too often that in the course of a case winding it’s way through the system it often stops being about finding justice and becomes all about EGO. This is particularly true of cases that make it to trial…..
Racingmom on January 10 at 4:54 p.m.
@Ninch (way up there somewhere in the postings). There is NOTHING that says after 10 years you no longer have to disclose felony convictions! Please do not pass on this bad information - failure to disclose past crimes can often cause severe problems. Maybe you are confused with getting a conviction vacated (which can be done if you fit certain criteria and wait the required number of years).
philipgregory on January 11 at 8:23 a.m.
Fire the prosecutor!
Constantly we read of abuse or neglect from that office. It’s time to do a clean sweep and get them all out of there! That’s just about the only cure.
From the store manager’s own account this was obviously NOT “…the use, or threatened use, of force..” as stated by the prosecutor.
And, with no prior criminal record this amounts to prosecutorial abuse!
Hcklbery on January 14 at 6:58 a.m.
Charge her for the cost of the State’s legal expenses upon losing her appeal.
She Started the ball rolling by attempting to take that which was not hers to take,
She made an adult’s fully informed and purposeful decision to steal. SHE MADE THAT DECISION and so her “no one trusts me anymore” CROCODILE TEARS should be rightly treated with contempt.
She obviously has no respect for right and wrong as it certainly is evidenced here and so what would be next if she were hired to teach ? Such a woman teacher with such disdain for right from wrong is just such a woman as seduces her underage male students for the “excitement” of breaking the law.
She should do jail time, people work hard to build a profitable business to secure their financial future NOT to have some punk come along and steal it.