Call for a Case Review 206-829-8415

Blog

How do you establish a claim for money damages under Washington's Wrongfully Convicted Persons Act?

Posted by Brian C. Zuanich | Jan 28, 2025 | 0 Comments

The government must prove you guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's a high burden, and the government can't always meet its burden, even if had enough evidence to charge you to begin with. 

But does a dismissal equal actual innocence?

That question is at the heart of the Wrongfully Convicted Person Act (WCPA), which the Washington legislature enacted in 2013.  Under WCPA, wrongfully convicted persons can petition the State for financial compensation because of being incarcerated for a crime they did not. 

But to prevail on a WAPA claim, you must prove by clear and convincing evidence that you are “actually innocent” of the crime for which you were charged.  This means that you “did not engage in any illegal conduct alleged in the charging documents,” as set forth in RCW 4.100.060.  

In Brock v. State, the Court of Appeals found the petitioner's claim insufficient, even after the victim recanted her testimony that Brock had sexually assaulted her decades earlier when she was a child. 

The Facts

Brock spent the night with an old family friend (Rush), Rush's boyfriend, and her three children, including 11-year-old R.R.  Brock slept on the living room couch, Rush and her boyfriend slept in the bedroom, and the three children slept on the floor in the living room. 

In the middle of the night, R.R. woke up her parents and said that Brock had touched her, put his hand in her pants, and left.  When her parents went to look for Brock, he had already left the apartment. 

After he was arrested later that night, Brock told police that he left early because he was making one of the girls uncomfortable.  He initially denied touching R.R., then said he may have bumped her, then said he touched her face and back.  “I'll tell you the truth,” Brock eventually said.  “I had three beers.  She's a fast girl.  She kept looking at me.”  He denied repeatedly he touched her vagina.

The State charged Brock with child sexual abuse, and a jury in Thurston County later convicted him of child molestation in the first degree in 1995.  But because this was his “third strike” under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act, he got life in prison without the possibility of parole. 

The Recantation

In 2012, R.R. recanted her 1995 allegations against Brock in a sworn declaration.  She later testified at a hearing in 2013 that she lied about the assault to get attention from her mother.  After the hearing, a Thurston County judge vacated Brock's conviction in 2014 and ordered a new trial. 

The State later dismissed the case without prejudice.  By this point. Brock had spent nearly two decades in prison. 

WCPA Trial

Brock later filed a claim under the WCPA, and the case went to trial in 2022.  Brock testified, unequivocally denying that he ever molested R.R.  When asked about initial police interview, however, he said he did not remember telling police that R.R. was a “fast girl” and that he touched her back and shoulder.  The State admitted the transcripts and evidence from the 1995 criminal trial, as well as statements that R.R. made to the sexual assault nurse who examined her after she made the allegations. 

The trial court denied Brock's WCPA claim.  Although the court found R.R.'s recantation consistent and credible, the court also found R.R.'s original allegations consistent and credible.  In effect, they cancelled each other out, so the trial court considered the other evidence, including Brock's 2022 testimony.

The court found some parts of Brock's testimony credible, but other parts not credible.  After considering all the evidence, the court found that Brock did not prove actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. 

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, Brock argued R.R.'s recantation alone satisfied his burden of proof.  But that is not enough.  “The statute does not guarantee,” the Court of Appeals ruled, “that any recantation constitutes clear and convincing evidence.” 

Put another way, a recantation doesn't “supersede” the original allegation—it just provides a “competing version of events.”  And the job of the judge is to evaluate each claim, consider all the other evidence, and make an evidence-based, reasonable decision. 

The issue is not whether R.R.'s recantation may have been enough, but the issue is whether is the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, even if other evidence conflicted with the trial court's findings.

As the Court of Appeals noted, the trial court considered the following pieces of evidence in denying Brok's claim: 

Brock left Rush's apartment immediately after the incident

Brock denied remembering telling police that he touched R.R.'s face and back and that R.R. was a “fast girl”

Brock's testimony that R.R. somehow knew he would “go back to prison” if she told police what happened

Based on the evidence, the trial judge reasonably believed that R.R.'s allegations were credible and that Brock committed the crime, even though the alleged victim later recanted everything.

About the Author

Brian C. Zuanich

I am the managing partner at Zuanich Law. I am a former prosecutor and insurance defense attorney, and have practiced law in state and federal courts for over a decade.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Case Review

Contact us for a Case Review. We are available 24/7, including weekends and holidays.

Menu