WPIC 300.27 Aggravating Circumstance—Impact on Others [RCW 9.94A.535(3)(r)]

For the aggravating circumstance of impact on others, use the applicable bracketed clause in WPIC 300.02 (Aggravating Circumstance Procedure—Factors Alleged—Unitary Trial) or WPIC 300.06 (Aggravating Circumstance Procedure—Factors Alleged—Bifurcated Trial or Stand-Alone Sentencing Proceeding).

RCW 9.94A.535(3)(r).

This aggravating circumstance was added to the Sentencing Reform Act in 2005. The accompanying legislative history indicates that the statutory language was designed to codify existing common law aggravating circumstances. Laws of 2005, Chapter 68, § 1 (effective April 15, 2005). Nonetheless, the language selected by the Legislature deviates from that used in prior case law.

The cases discussing this aggravating circumstance primarily have involved crimes committed in the presence of young children or near a school. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 124 Wn.2d 57, 75–76, 873 P.2d 514 (1994) (committing a crime in the presence of young children; impact on community from crime committed immediately adjacent to elementary school); State v. Mulligan, 87 Wn.App. 261, 941 P.2d 694 (1997) (committing a crime in the presence of young children); State v. Cuevas-Diaz, 61 Wn.App. 902, 905–07, 812 P.2d 883 (1991) (committing a crime in the presence of young children); State v. Barnes, 58 Wn.App. 465, 475, 794 P.2d 52 (1990), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 117 Wn.2d 701, 818 P.2d 1088 (1991) (committing a crime in the presence of young children). For a case involving the impact on adults rather than children, see State v. Crutchfield, 53 Wn.App. 916, 927–28, 771 P.2d 746 (1989) (making false statements that prolonged the anguish of the parents of the homicide victim).

This aggravating circumstance cannot be applied to “victimless” crimes — that is, crimes in which the victim is the general public. State v. Davis, 182 Wn.2d 222, 340 P.3d 820 (2014) (circumstance inapplicable to crime of rendering criminal assistance).

Although the defendant's nine-year-old daughter was present when her father committed first-degree robbery, appeared “stunned” and was carefully measuring her words shortly after the robbery, the State failed to prove that the robbery involved a destructive and foreseeable impact on defendant's daughter that would justify a jury finding under this aggravator. The State failed to prove that the crime had a lasting destructive impact. State v. Webb, 162 Wn.App. 195, 252 P.3d 424 (2011).

The statutory presumption is that this aggravating circumstance will be presented to the jury during the trial of the alleged crime. RCW 9.94A.537(4).

For further discussion of this aggravating circumstance, see Fine, 13B Washington Practice, Criminal Law and Sentencing, section 47:20 (3d ed.).