<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday,  April 18 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
News / Clark County News

Jury convicts man in assault of deputy

Jurors saw no intent to injure, but delivered overlapping other convictions

By Laura McVicker
Published: April 22, 2011, 12:00am

A deputy prosecutor described it as an intentional assault, while a defense attorney dismissed it as just a desperate man trying to make a quick getaway from a cop.

A Clark County jury decided Friday evening that Raymond H. Hall didn’t intend to seriously injure a sheriff’s deputy when he drove a stolen patrol car straight toward him. But, they decided, he was still guilty of using the car as a “deadly weapon.”

After deliberating four hours, the panel of seven women and five men rendered guilty verdicts to lesser charges of second-degree assault and third-degree assault.

The prosecution was seeking a conviction of first-degree assault, which requires proof of intent to inflict great bodily injury — as opposed to second-degree assault, which just requires proof that a deadly weapon was used.

Jurors also convicted Hall, 30, of charges of first- and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm and theft of a firearm relating to an assault rifle inside the stolen patrol car.

When the dust settled, attorneys realized the panel convicted Hall of too many charges. Jurors were given a menu of charges and instructed to convict of a lesser charge only if they couldn’t decide on a more serious one.

But they convicted on almost all of the charges.

“Perhaps this is an inconsistent jury verdict. I don’t know what to make of it at this point,” defense attorney Jeff Sowder said, once jurors were dismissed shortly after 6 p.m.

Clark County Superior Court Judge John Wulle scheduled a review Tuesday to decide how to move forward to sentencing in light of the extra verdicts.

Afterward, Senior Deputy Prosecutor Alan Harvey said Hall faces a sentence of about 19 years in prison.

The jury received the case at 1 p.m. Friday after hearing the attorneys’ closing arguments that morning in the weeklong trial.

Hall was a passenger in a pickup stopped in the early morning of Dec. 26 by sheriff’s Deputy Rob Ternus for having defective brake lights. Hall ran from the pickup, then around a building before jumping into the patrol car.

Harvey had argued that Hall then faced a choice. The deputy was standing in front of the stolen patrol car, parked on Northeast 78th Street, shouting for Hall, behind the wheel, to surrender. Ternus’ gun was drawn, and he warned Hall that he’d shoot if he didn’t exit the car, Harvey said.

Stay informed on what is happening in Clark County, WA and beyond for only
$9.99/mo

His decision, the deputy prosecutor argued, was clearly shown in his actions: He locked eyes with the deputy, shifted gears and accelerated toward him.

Harvey said those actions constituted first-degree assault because he intended to injure Ternus. Washington law allows people to be convicted of first-degree assault even if a victim wasn’t injured.

About Hall’s intent, Harvey said: “He thought, ‘I don’t care what that guy is prepared to do; I’m prepared to do more.’ “

Defense argument

In his closing argument, defense attorney Sowder criticized the deputy’s actions as a way to refute the assault charge. First, he asked whether the deputy’s actions were reasonable. Ternus chased Hall when he ran away and then stood in front of his patrol car when Hall got inside. Ternus had left his car unlocked and running, which, he testified, was standard procedure in law enforcement.

“Is there any reason to chase (Hall)?” Sowder said. “There’s no information that he’s a convicted felon. He’s not under arrest.”

Sowder also pointed out inconsistent statements Ternus made to investigators. The deputy initially said he stepped briefly in front of the patrol car’s headlight before quickly stepping to the side. Ternus had testified that he stood directly in front of the patrol car before jumping away and firing his pistol at Hall, whose back was grazed by the bullet.

Sowder asked why his client was being charged with firearm charges just because he was in a car with an assault rifle inside.

“Just merely being in proximity to contraband is not enough,” Sowder said. “Was there dominion and control over a locked gun in a car he had for five minutes?”

Harvey explained that seizing the car gave Hall “exclusive control” of the rifle, constituting the firearms charges.

Laura McVicker: 360-735-4516 or laura.mcvicker@columbian.com.

Loading...