Spokane7
59°
February 16, 2012 in News, City
Supreme Court reverses Spokane man’s conviction
The Washington State Supreme Court overturned the conviction today of a Spokane man who was convicted of rendering criminal assistance after investigators alleged that he refused to tell them who shot him.
The split decision erases the conviction, in which a judge sentenced Kenneth R. Budik to spend more time in prison than the two men who pleaded guilty to the 2007 shooting that injured him and killed 28-year-old Adama R. Walton.
After suffering a gunshot wound to the leg and another that shattered his shoulder, Budik told Spokane Police detective Kip Hollenbeck that he did not know who shot him and Walton. But the detective suspected Budik was withholding information and eventually charged him with first-degree rendering criminal assistance.
After a jury convicted him, Budik was sentenced to 13 months in prison.
“Mere false disavowal of knowledge is insufficient to sustain a conviction for rendering criminal assistance,” Justice Susan Owen wrote for the majority.
The decision reverses both the jury’s verdict and a decision by the Division III Court of Appeals to uphold the conviction.
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen ultimately agreed with her counterparts on the final decision to reverse the conviction, but she didn’t agree with the other justices’ reasoning. And Justice James Johnson dissented, saying the conviction should have been upheld.
“The issue was whether to believe Budik or believe the other witnesses,” Johnson wrote in his dissent. “The jury considered all the evidence, and it unanimously found Budik guilty. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.”
Hollenbeck could not be reached Thursday for comment. But he told The Spokesman-Review in 2009 that the investigation was frustrating because none of the witnesses would cooperate.
“Kenny Budik is probably the most uncooperative witness we had in the entire case, and he’s a victim,” Hollenbeck said in 2009. “That’s a perfect example of how this case went.”
The shooting occurred outside of a party. Walton was driving his girlfriend’s gold Chevrolet Avalanche when he was shot through both lungs and Budik was also hit twice. Walton drove a block and a half before the vehicle rolled with the injured Budik inside.
Later at the hospital, Budik told Hollenbeck that he didn’t know who shot him. Since an empty shell casing was found in the vehicle, Hollenbeck reportedly believed Budik should have been close enough to the shooter to provide the person’s identification.
As it was, Deputy Prosecutor Mark Cipolla eventually charged Freddie J. Miller and Titus T. Davis with first-degree murder. But Miller pleaded guilty to a reduced charged of rendering criminal assistance. And, a jury later could not reach a decision during the trial for Davis.
He later pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was released on the day of his guilty plea, having been given a reduced sentence of time already served.
“Those guys are out walking the street again,” said Hollenbeck in 2009, referring to Miller and Davis. “I hate to say it … but there’s nothing we can do.”
Recent stories by Thomas Clouse
Recent stories in News
Gay marriage foes: referendum has enough signatures May 30, 2012 29- 1992 murder trial begins against sex offender May 30, 2012 1
- Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules May 30, 2012 29
- Man dies following early Saturday car crash May 30, 2012 16
- Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 7
valleyman on February 16 at 2:58 p.m.
Hard to understand this one… Oh well…
RedCedar on February 16 at 3:45 p.m.
This was the right decision. Cops are understandably frustrated when they have a crime involving multiple witnesses but no one will talk. Nevertheless, imprisoning people for not cooperating is not going to make them any more cooperative. If I had gotten in a fight with some ruffians and ended up getting hurt, and I knew the police would interrogate me and it might not look good for me, I would probably decide not to talk to them either. I know it’s not the best outcome, but it sounds like this prosecution was mostly the result of a p*ssing contest. If a crime victim doesn’t want to help the police, there really isn’t much we can do about it, frustrating as it may be.
I’m no lawyer, but refusing to tell the cops what happened is not something that rises to the level of “rendering criminal assistance”. In many neighborhoods, not telling the cops what happened is a necessary choice for self-preservation. That’s a big problem, but it’s not going to be solved by giving the detectives another tool for bullying and threatening uncooperative crime victims.
brianrbreen on February 16 at 3:52 p.m.
More here.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/02/gang-shooter-given-light-sentence/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/nov/14/mistrial-declared-in-murder-trial/
Mr_Injustice on February 16 at 4:30 p.m.
RedCedar, you assume these are normal citizens. How many parties have you gone to where people ended up shot? Probably none.
If you read between the lines these are violent drug fueled gangsters.
You do not have to talk to the Police as a victim or witness. You do however have to tell them the truth if you decide to open your mouth. Anything less than that is misleading them and a crime. IF you don’t want to talk to them then say so. At least then if they continue to pressure you, there is a record that you did not want to talk to the Police.
Washington State Supreme Court Justices must all be leaders of some crime family, they constantly side with the criminals.
If anyone wonders why Crime is hard to stop, just look at the decisions coming out our Justices…pathetic!
D Statler on February 16 at 4:42 p.m.
Seems anytime Mark Cipola is involved. Things always get twisted or thrown out. You deploy enough frivolous charges,something will eventually stick.I have to wonder why Spokane still employs prosecutors that will do anything for a conviction. From bullying victims to threatening witnesses with perjury in the stairwells at the court house. This Prosecutor has a questionable track record and should be relieved of his employment. There are three innocent young men still in prison stemming from Cipola’s frivolous charges stemming from spotty detective work. After finding out about the fabricated stories of their informant. Spokane prosecutors failed to correct the problem. There are currently three guilty home invasion suspects running the streets dealing oxycontin. The innocent three are still behind bars. There is plenty of evidence available to re-prosecute the guilty partys. Look and Sound Familiar to this case?
D Statler on February 16 at 4:50 p.m.
@ mr-Injustice, Or the decisions not coming from our Supreme Court. Some times it appears they don’t worry about what is morally right. It appears that legal justice takes precedence no matter how wrong their decision seems. One must consider who is responsible for bringing these charges to begin with. The rendering assistance charge on an obvious victim was marginal at best. Quite a waste of time and tax dollars :^(
silverlake89 on February 16 at 4:53 p.m.
Not cooperating when you are a victim is one thing…it’s not like this guy had to follow through with charges for the assualt….but not cooperating when you’re friend was shot to death is something else altogether.
Seems to me that Spokane is not one of those cities where testifying is a life or death issue, I don’t understand why this guy didn’t want the shooters behind bars after they killed someone.
I do however think the punishment did not fit the crime…how in the HELL does killing someone get less time than being uncooperative? WTF?
brianrbreen on February 16 at 5:17 p.m.
Here is the opinion, which makes for some interesting reading and perhaps provides some perspective regarding the facts surrounding the case.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=847142MAJ
brianrbreen on February 16 at 5:30 p.m.
Well hopefully with the recent round up of a number of gangsters by a federal taskforce some of the local folks, cops and prosecutors alike, will get some insight on how they might effectively use some of the tools available to them at the State level. Like for example the Inquiry Judge Proceeding, or for that matter the Grand Jury Process, both of which were put in place to deal with folks just like these gangsters.
UA_Big_Dummy on February 16 at 6:36 p.m.
It was worth the effort even though the result wasn’t what it should have been.
RedCedar on February 16 at 7:04 p.m.
Possibly he was afraid that they or their friends would come back and finish the attempted murder if by some inconceivable miscarriage of justice, not all of the perpetrators and their friends ended up safely incarcerated forever. Or possibly they were all involved in some sort of criminal activity and he didn’t want want them to rat him out. Or possibly it’s none of our business. The right to freedom of speech includes the right to not speak, and sometimes even the right to lie.
When the detective(s) and/or prosecutor(s) personally dislike the guy and have made it an ego contest and a petty p*ssing match.
oink on February 16 at 8:03 p.m.
Spokane Cops….
Spokane prosecutor….
Over charge….
hope some tin will stick
YA THINK??
something about a cheese or ham sammich they were learned anyone could be……
Next the Spokane Guild/ SPD/ will want To have charges of rendering if you fail to produce proof of insurance and you don’t name your insurance Agent
oink on February 16 at 8:18 p.m.
RCW 9A.76.050(4), the State must show that the defendant
has made some affirmative act or statement.
No Affirmative Statement …
No Affirmative act…
Please spend more of our tax money to cover up the police cover ups.
PROFINTOX on February 16 at 9:25 p.m.
A couple of observations, one regarding the legal interpretation and one regarding the sentence. Regarding the law, I can see how the jury decided the charge was valid. If you read the RCW, it seems that condition (4) was met because one could conclude that the defendant made a deceptive statement that obstructed law enforcement/the prosecution regarding the apprehension/prosecution of the shooter which he knew had committed the crime. Of course, you would have to conclude that this was done intentionally and that he actually DID know the identity of the person who committed the crime. Not sure I would have stretched things that far if I were on the jury, but I can see how in following the letter of the law one could reach that conclusion. Regardless though, given the jury decided what it did, the sentence to me seems simply ridiculous. That the person shot could get more time than the shooters is just stupid given the specific circumstances. This is a good example of why people become upset with some of the sentences that get attached to convictions.
silverlake89 on February 16 at 9:52 p.m.
“…Or possibly they were all involved in some sort of criminal activity…”
RedCedar, I think you hit the nail on the head. If I had been shot to death and my friend was seriously injured I would expect everyone involved to do some hard time.
There’s obviously more to this story.
RedCedar on February 16 at 10:05 p.m.
I’m sure there is, silverlake. Nonetheless, the fifth amendment still has some force and effect and if a man doesn’t want to talk, he doesn’t have to. Mr. Budik between a rock and a hard place. Maybe the prosecutor was trying to punish him for refusing to plead guilty like his friends/assailants had. Maybe only one of the other two would have been convicted of the shooting had it gone to trial, but for whatever reason both were intimidated/seduced into pleading guilty. This rather sordid case gives us some insight into how plea-bargaining works.
DickAdams on February 16 at 11:24 p.m.
Mr. inJ:
Your comment, “If anyone wonders why Crime is hard to stop, just look at the decisions coming out our Justices…pathetic!”
I agree with you.
I also wonder about attorneys in the Lilac City. Take for example, Roco Treppiedi, a Spokane city attorney who many of us thought, Mayor Condon would fire him shortly after being sworn in as mayor. What did Condon do? David Condon appointted City Attorney Delaney, Treppiedi`s boss, knowing Delaney would continue to keep Roco on the city payroll and use his attorney talents the same way he did before Condon was mayor (I`ll bet Rocky is thumbing his nose at anybody wanting him fired) and is gainfully employed with the city of Spokane and will continue to do what he did best (you know) prior to Condon).
brianrbreen on February 17 at 7:33 a.m.
Had an Inquiry Judge Proceeding or Grand Jury been utilized to investigate the case Budik could have been subpoenaed and required to testify even if he plead the fifth. If he refused to testify he could be thrown in the clink until he decided to talk. If he did testify and perjured himself he could be charged with perjury. If Miller wasn’t a “Target” (the shooter) and was thought to have just rendered assistance to Davis he too could have been called and forced to testify, even though the government would likely be giving up charges against him (so what look what happened). For that matter anyone involved could have been called, and forced to testify.
It is difficult to tell from information available if there was one shooter or two (two weapons) it sounds like just one weapon. But when Davis was first tried for Murder One the jury split six/six. Which seems to indicate it wasn’t a strong case. After that the prosecutor decided to allow a plea to Manslaughter (huge jump) prior to a second Murder One trial. Miller pleads to Rendering Criminal assistance (even bigger jump) just as his Murder One trial began. It may be that the cops really didn’t know or couldn’t prove which one was the shooter even though according to the media reports the witnesses said Davis was the shooter. Having two people charged with Murder One for the same shooting and apparently only one weapon/shooter makes it easy for the defense to blame the other. Sounds to me like charging Miller with Murder One was a strategy that backfired.
IMO the reason that Inquiry Judge Proceedings and Grand Juries (even though they were intended for cases like this) are underutilized is because they require a lot more work on the part of the prosecutor. Good possibility however that it might of helped in this case.