The State of Washington, Appellant v. Yvonne L. Wanrow, Respondent

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed Yvonne Wanrow's convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree assault, remanding for a new trial on two independent grounds: the tape recording of her conversation with the police emergency operator was inadmissible because the call was a 'private communication' under RCW 9.73.030(1) and RCW 9.73.090(1) permits recording of incoming emergency calls only for verifying the accuracy of reception, not for use as evidence under RCW 9.73.050; and instruction No. 10 misstated the law of self-defense both by limiting the jury to acts and circumstances occurring 'at or immediately before the killing' and by imposing a masculine-gendered objective reasonableness standard that denied the woman defendant equal protection by failing to judge her conduct by her own perceptions. The court held self-defense must be evaluated in light of all facts and circumstances known to the defendant, including those known substantially before the killing, found the instruction error presumed prejudicial, and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing expert testimony on the effects of Wanrow's Indian culture. Justice Wright concurred in the result on the statutory ground only. Justice Hamilton, joined by Chief Justice Stafford and Justice Rosellini, dissented, concluding the tape was properly admitted under RCW 9.73.090(1) and the instructions, considered as a whole, were not so prejudicial as to require a new trial.