The State of Washington, Respondent v. Michael Charles Green, Appellant

Summary

On reconsideration, the Washington Supreme Court adhered to Green I's rejection of Green's Miranda and equal protection challenges but departed from its earlier merits disposition: it adopted Jackson v. Virginia's rule that sufficiency of evidence turns on whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution, could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and concluded the evidence could not support kidnapping — an alternative element of aggravated first degree murder — under either that standard or the former substantial-evidence test. It further held that where alternative elements are themselves separate crimes, jury unanimity on the underlying felony is imperative, that the failure to so instruct invaded the constitutional right to jury trial and was therefore reviewable despite the absence of a trial request, and that the general verdict form made it impossible to know whether the jury unanimously found rape. The conviction was therefore reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial confined to the rape/attempted rape basis, with the State's request for resentencing on the lesser included offense of first degree murder refused because the jury was never instructed on it. Chief Justice Utter, joined by Williams, J., concurred, supplying an additional objective 'free to go' analysis for Miranda custody; Justice Dolliver concurred in the result while defending the substantial evidence rule as consistent with Jackson; Justice Rosellini, joined by Wright and Brachtenbach, JJ., dissented, finding ample evidence of kidnap-murder and no difference between the two sufficiency standards.