Washington v. Recuenco
Issues
Can a judge's imposition of a sentencing enhancement based on a fact not found by the jury be upheld under the harmless error doctrine if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have made the same finding?
A jury found that defendant Recuenco assaulted his wife using a “deadly weapon,” but the jury was never asked to find whether he used a “firearm.” Afterwards, the trial judge—independent of the jury—found that Recuenco used a “firearm” and increased his sentence by three years. Where the judge’s failure to instruct the jury about a “firearm” did not influence their verdict, may a reviewing court uphold the resulting sentence if it finds the erroneous instruction was harmless? Or must the court vacate the sentence because the error tainted the entire trial? The State of Washington argues that an incomplete jury instruction qualifies as a harmless error. To the contrary, Recuenco argues that the judge's imposition of an enhanced sentence based on facts not found by the jury violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether error as to the definition of a sentencing enhancement should be subject to harmless error analysis where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict on the enhancement.
Defendant Arturo Recuenco became enraged at his wife after learning that she did not prepare dinner for his relatives. Brief for Petitioner at 3.