DATE FILED: 12/2/82 (to be indicated by Clerk of Supreme Court) Questionnaire approved for use pursuant to Laws of 1981, ch. 138, 12. REPORT OF THE TRIAL JUDE Aggravated First Degree Murder Case Superior Court of CLALLAM County, Washington Cause No. 6295 State v. CHARLES DEAN BINHAM INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question. If you do not have sufficient information to supply an answer, please so indicate after the specific question. If sufficient space is not allowed on the questionnaire form for answer to the question, use the back of the page, indicating the number of the question which you are answering, or attach additional sheets. If more than one defendant was convicted of aggravated first degree murder in this case, please make out a separate questionnaire for each such defendant. The statute specifies that this report shall, within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment and sentence, be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, to the defendant or his or her attorney, and to the prosecuting attorney. 0008
- 2 - (1) Information about the Defendant CHARLES DEAN (a) Name: BINHAM, Last, First Middle Date of Birth: 8/2/56 Sex: M Marital Status: Never Married F Married Separated Divorced Spouse Deceased Race or ethnic origin of defendant: 1/4 TO 1/2 PONCA INDIAN AND CAUCASIAN (Specify) (b) Number and ages of defendant's children: ONE CHILD - 6 MONTH OF AE AT PRESENT TIME (DOB 5/2/82) (c) Defendant's NATURAL Father living: UNKNOWN If deceased, date of death: Defendant's NATURAL Mother living: UNKNOWN If deceased, date of death: BOTH ADOPTIVE PARENTS ARE LIVIN. (d) Number of children born to defendant's parents: 3 (e) Defendant's education--check highest grade completed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 College: 1 2 3 4 Intelligence Level: Low IQ Score: 76 Medium Above Average High
- 3 - Further explanation or comment: HIS IQ SCORE PLACES HIM AT THE 5TH PERCENTILE (I.E. 95% OF THE POPULATION SCORES HIHER). DR. DIANE O LEARY, THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOIST WHO PERFORMED THE IQ TEST (WESCHLER ADULT INTELLIENCE SCALE) STATED, THE PATTERN OF SCORES IS UNIFORMLY DEPRESSED AND WOULD INDICATE AN INDIVIDUAL OF MARINAL CONITIVE CAPACITY. THE IQ WHICH IS REPORTED HERE FALLS IN THE BORDERLINE RANE OF MENTAL RETARDATION. THIS CONDITION IS A ENERALIZED CONITIVE FEATURE, AND IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF SPECIFIC LEARNIN DEFICIT OR FOCAL BRIAN DAMAE. THERE WAS REFERENCE IN THE TESTIMONY TO A SCORE ACHIEVED BY THE DEFENDANT OF 93 ON AN IQ TEST ADMINISTERED WHILE HE WAS AN INMATE AT THE SOUTH DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY FROM SEPTEMBER OF 1979 TO JANUARY OF 1981, BUT NO DETAILED TESTIMONY OR EXPLANATION OF THAT IQ TEST.
- 4 - (f) Was a psychiatric evaluation performed: If yes, did the evaluation indicate that the defendant was: able to distinguish right from wrong? (i) able to perceive the nature and quality (ii) of his or her act? able to cooperate intelligently in his (iii) or her own defense? NOTE: DR. JOAN HAMPSON, M.D., THE PSYCHIATRIST WHO PERFORMED THE EVALUATION INDICATED THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DISTINUISH RIHT FROM WRON AND UNABLE TO PERCEIVE THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF HIS ACTS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE BECAUSE OF ALCOHOL INTOXICATION. THIS OPINION WAS BASED UPON THE HISTORY IVEN HER. (g) Please describe any character or behavior disorders found or other pertinent psychiatric or psychological information: DIANOSTIC IMPRESSION OF DR. O LEARY FROM D.S.M. III: 301.70 ANTI- SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER, 303.92 ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE, EPISODIC, V.62.89 BORDERLINE INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONIN. SEE COPY OF DR. O LEARY S REPORT OF MAY 6, 1982 TESTIN ATTACHED. (h) Please describe the work record of the defendant: DEFENDANT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED AS A TRUCK DRIVER, CONSTRUCTION LABORER, FARM LABORER, AND HANDYMAN. HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS SPORADIC. THE LONEST SINLE JOB HE HELD WAS FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS. (i) If the defendant has a record of prior convictions, please list: Offense Date Sentence Imposed SEE EXCERPT FROM BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED IN THIS CAUSE BY THE PROSECUTIN ATTORNEY, WHICH LISTS THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT S PRIOR CONVICTIONS, ATTACHED HERETO. (j) Length of time defendant has resided in: Washington: 9/81 TO DATE County of conviction: 10/81 TO DATE
- 5 - (2) Information about the Trial (a) How did the defendant plead to the charge of aggravated first degree murder?: uilty Not uilty Not uilty by reason of insanity (b) Was the defendant represented by counsel?: (c) Please indicate if there was evidence introduced or instructions given as to any defense(s) to the crime of aggravated first degree murder: Evidence Instruction(s) Excusable Homicide Justifiable Homicide Insanity Duress Entrapment Alibi Intoxication Other specific defenses:
- 6 - (d) If the defendant was charged with other offenses which were tried in the same trial, list the other offenses below and indicate whether defendant was convicted: Convicted NONE (e) What aggravating circumstances, as set forth in Laws of 1981, ch. 138 2, were alleged against the defendant and which of these circumstances were found to have been applicable?: Aggravating Circumstances Alleged Found Applicable RAPE IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEREE (f) Please provide the names of each other defendant tried jointly with this defendant, the charges filed against each other defendant, and the disposition of each charge: Name: NONE Offenses Charged Disposition
- 7 - Name: Offenses Charged Disposition (3) Information Concerning the Special Sentencing Proceeding (a) Date of Conviction: 10/28/82 Date special sentencing proceeding commenced: 11/1/82 (b) Was the jury for the special sentencing proceeding composed of the same jurors as the jury that returned the verdict to the charge of aggravated first degree murder? If the answer to the above question is no, please explain: THREE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE SELECTED AND SAT THROUH THE UILT PHASE OF THE TRIAL. WHILE THE JURY DELIBERATED THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE EXCUSED BUT WERE INSTRUCTED THEY WERE STILL POTENTIAL JURORS AND ADVISED NOT TO EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO ANYTHIN ABOUT THE CASE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM. WHEN THE JURY RECONVENED THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE ALSO BROUHT BACK. HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATE JURORS, DURIN THE SENTENCIN PHASE WERE HOUSED IN A SEPARATE AVAILABLE JURY ROOM, SO THAT THEY WERE SEREATED FROM THE REULAR JURY, EXCEPT WHILE SEATED IN THE JURY BOX DURIN COURT PROCEEDINS. THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE INSTRUCTED TO HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE REULAR JURY. THE ALTERNATES WERE NOT NEEDED AND WERE FULLY DISCHARED AT THE TIME THE JURY RETIRED TO DELIBERATE UPON THE SENTENCE. (c) Was there, in the court's opinion, credible evidence of any mitigating circumstances as provided in Laws of 1981, ch. 138, 7?
- 8 - If yes, please describe: THE JURY COULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT S ENTIRE CRIMINAL HISTORY WAS ALCOHOL RELATED, AND THAT HE ONLY BECAME ASSAULTIVE OR PHYSICALLY VIOLENT WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. THE JURY COULD FURTHER FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUS AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE MURDER, AND THAT HE EXPERIENCED AN ALCOHOLIC BLACKOUT OF ANY OF THE EVENTS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE MURDER. AND THAT THE DEFENDANT, IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTIN LIKE A SLEEPWALKER AT THE TIME THE MURDER WAS COMMITTED. IN ADDITION, THE JURY COULD FIND THAT IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE A DANER TO OTHERS IN THE FUTURE, IVEN A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE. HE WAS DESCRIBED AS A OOD PRISONER BY THE WARDEN OF THE S. DAKOTA STATE PENITENTIARY DURIN THE TIME THE DEFENDANT SPENT THERE FROM 9/18/79 TO 1/27/81 AND THAT THE DEFENDANT POSED NO SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR THEM.
- 9 - (d) Was there evidence of mitigating circumstances, whether or not of a type listed in Laws of 1981, ch. 138, 7, not described in answer to (3)(c) above? If yes, please describe: THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A DEPRIVED CHILDHOOD. HIS NATURAL MOTHER WAS AN ALCOHOLIC AND ABUSED AND NELECTED HER CHILDREN. HE WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER UP UNTIL ABOUT THE AE OF 1.5 TO 2 YEARS. FURTHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT HAVE A OOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS ADOPTED FATHER OR MOTHER, AND THEY TOOK NO PRIDE OR PLEASURE IN HIM AS THEIR CHILD. (e) How did the jury answer the question posed in Laws of 1981, ch. 138, 6(4), that is: "Having in mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency? (f) What sentence was imposed? LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE (4) Information about the Victim (a) Was the victim related to the defendant by blood or marriage? If yes, please describe the relationship: (b) What was the victim's occupation, and was the victim an employer or employee of the defendant? THE VICTIM WAS RETARDED AND LIVIN IN A ROUP HOME IN PORT ANELES. SHE WAS EMPLOYED THROUH THE ROUP HOME, WHICH PROVIDED JANITORIAL SERVICES. SHE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT.
- 10 - (c) Was the victim acquainted with the defendant, and if so, how well? THE DEFENDANT MET THE VICTIM ON A BUS, TRAVELIN FROM PORT ANELES TO SEQUIM APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE HOURS BEFORE THE MURDER OCCURRED. (d) If the victim was a resident of Washington, please state: Length of Washington residency: County of residence: Length of residency in that county: ALL HER LIFE (27 YEARS) CLALLAM APPROXIMATELY 5 YEARS (e) Was the victim of the same race or ethnic origin as the defendant? If no, please state the victim's race or ethnic origin: 1/16 SNOHOMISH INDIAN AND CAUCASIAN (f) Was the victim of the same sex as the defendant? (g) Was the victim held hostage during the crime? If yes, for how long: (h) Please describe the nature and extent of any physical harm or torture inflicted upon the victim prior to death: PLEASE SEE THE AUTOPSY REPORT OF DR. REAY ATTACHED. IN ADDITION, DR. REAY TESTIFIED AT TRIAL THAT THE BITE MARKS UPON THE VICTIM S BREASTS OCCURRED AFTER DEATH. OTHER TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL INDICATED THAT THE VICTIM S PUBIC HAIR HAD BEEN SINED, THAT THAT THERE WERE NO BURNS TO THE VICTIM S SKIN. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN THE VICTIM S HAIRS HAD BEEN SINED.
- 11 - (i) What was the age of the victim? 27 YEARS (j) What type of weapon, if any, was used in the crime? NONE (5) Information about the Representation of Defendant (If more than one counsel represented the defendant, answer each question separately as to each counsel. Attach separate sheets containing answers for additional counsel.) (a) Name of counsel: SEE NEXT PAE (b) Date on which counsel was secured: SEE NEXT PAE (c) Was counsel retained or appointed? If appointed, please state the reason therefor: APPOINTED BY REASON OF DEFENDANT S INDIENCY. (d) How long has counsel practiced law, and what is the nature of counsel's practice? SEE NEXT PAE (e) Did the same counsel serve at both the trial and the special sentencing proceeding, and if not, why not? YES, FORD AND ROSS DID.
- 12 - COUNSEL WERE APPOINTED AND RELIEVED OF THEIR DUTIES AS FOLLOWS: THE CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE WAS APPOINTED FEBRUARY 22, 1982 AND RELIEVED OF THEIR DUTIES ON APRIL 8, 1982. BRIAN PAUL COUHENOUR WAS APPOINTED TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE IN REPRESENTIN THE DEFENDANT ON FEBRUARY 22, 1982* AND HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1982. TIMOTHY K. FORD WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT ON APRIL 8, 1982 AND SERVED THROUHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL. KATHRYN ROSS WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT ON AUUST 16, 1982 AND SERVED THROUHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL. PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE WAS RELIEVED OF THEIR DUTIES AND MR. FORD SUBSTITUTED BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE STAFF TO PROPERLY REPRESENT A DEFENDANT IN A CAPITAL MURDER CASE, CONSIDERIN THE CASE LOAD OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE. MR. COUHENOUR WAS RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 BECAUSE IT HAD BECOME APPARENT TO THE DEFENSE TEAM THAT IT MIHT BE NECESSARY TO CALL MR. COUHENOUR AS A WITNESS AT THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE TRIAL. MR. COUHENOUR WAS ULTIMATELY CALLED AS A WITNESS AT THE PENALTY PHASE. (d) COUNSEL S EXPERIENCE: TIMOTHY K. FORD - HAS PRACTICED LAW SINCE JANUARY 1976. HE IS A SOLE PRACTITIONER, AND HIS PRACTICE IS MOSTLY DEVOTED TO CRIMINAL DEFENSE. HE HAS PREVIOUSLY PARTICIPATED DURIN THE TRIAL PHASE IN ONE DEATH PENALTY CASE. HE HAS BEEN A CONSULTANT ON A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN APPROXIMATELY FIFTY DEATH PENALTY CASES. HE HAS BRIEFED AND ARUED AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL APPROXIMATELY SIX DEATH PENALTY CASES. KATHRYN ROSS - HAS PRACTICED LAW SINCE THE FALL OF 1976. SHE HAS A ENERAL PRIVATE PRACTICE. SHE HAS PARTICIPATED AT THE TRIAL STAE IN TWO PREVIOUS DEATH PENALTY CASES, ONE OF WHICH WAS TRIED THROUH TO A VERDICT BY THE JURY, AND ONE OF WHICH RESULTED IN A PLEA BARAIN. *MR. COUHENOUR WAS SELECTED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE TO ASSIST THEM PURSUANT TO COURT AUTHORIZATION. WHEN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS RELIEVED ON APRIL 8, 1982, MR. COUHENOUR CONTINUED ALON WITH MR. FORD AS COUNSEL OF RECORD UNTIL MR. COUHENOUR WAS RELIEVED OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES.
- 13 - (6) eneral Considerations (a) Was the race or ethnic origin of the defendant, victim, or any witness an apparent factor at trial? If yes, please explain: THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT S NATIVE AMERICAN BACKROUND, AND NO EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM S NATIVE AMERICAN BACKROUND. OTHERWISE IT WAS NOT AN APPARENT FACTOR. (b) What percentage of the population of the county is the same race or ethnic origin as the defendant? Race Ethnic Origin Under 10% NATIVE AMERICAN 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-90% Over 90% If there appears to be any reason to answer this question with respect to a county other than the county in which the trial was held, please explain:
- 14 - (c) How many persons of the defendant's or victim's race or ethnic origin were represented on the jury? Defendant: Victim: Further explanation or comment: ALL MEMBERS OF THE JURY WERE CAUCASIAN EXCEPT ONE WHO WAS PART SIOUX INDIAN. ONE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO WAS APPARENTLY A FULL BLOODED NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN WAS PASSED FOR CAUSE AND SUBSEQUENTLY PEREMPTORILY CHALLENED BY THE DEFENDANT. (d) Was there any evidence that persons of any particular race or ethnic origin were systematically excluded from the jury? If yes, please explain: (e) Was the sexual orientation of the defendant, victim, or any witness an apparent factor at trial? If yes, please explain:
- 15 - (f) Was the jury specifically instructed to exclude race, ethnic origin, or sexual preference as an issue? (g) Was there extensive publicity in the community concerning this case? (h) Was the jury instructed to disregard publicity? (i) Was the jury instructed to avoid any influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor when considering its verdict or its findings in the special sentencing proceeding? AT THE PENALTY PHASE, YES. AT THE SENTENCIN PHASE, NO. THE JURY WAS IVEN THE PATTERN INSTRUCTION WPIC 1.01, THE LAST SENTENCE OF WHICH CAUTIONS THE JURY TO NOT ALLOW SYMPATHY OR PREJUDICE TO INFLUENCE THEM. THE ONLY FACTOR THAT WOULD MAKE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION NECESSARY IN THIS CASE WAS THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. (j) Please describe the nature of any evidence suggesting the necessity for instructions of the type described in 6(f) through 6(i) above which were given: THE TRIAL WAS REPORTED, ALTHOUH NOT EXTENSIVELY. ALL ARTICLES DURIN TRIAL WERE ON THE BACK PAES OF THE PAPER EXCEPT THE REPORT OF THE VERDICT WAS ON PAE 1. THERE WERE NO PICTURES.
- 16 - (k) eneral comments of the trial judge concerning the appropriateness of the sentence, considering the crime, the defendant, and other relevant factors: THE CRIME WAS A RAPE AND MURDER BY STRANULATION OF A RETARDED IRL WITH WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR RELATIONSHIP UNTIL A FEW HOURS BEFORE THE MURDER OCCURRED. ALTHOUH ONLY TWENTY-SIX, THE DEFENDANT WAS A PRACTICIN ALCOHOLIC FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WITH HIS ALCOHOLISM ETTIN WORSE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. HE HAD TAKEN NO REAL ACTION TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEM, AND BECAUSE OF HIS LOW INTELLIENCE AND LACK OF MOTIVATION, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO DRINK AND COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES WHILE IN AN INTOXICATED CONDITION. THEREFORE, LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL MITIATIN FACTORS, AS SET FORTH IN THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 3(C), WHICH JUSTIFIED THE JURY IN REFUSIN TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY; IN PARTICULAR, THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT ONLY POSED A RISK OF SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIMES WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUS, AND THE FACT THAT WHEN INCARCERATED, WITHOUT ACCESS TO DRUS, HE IS A OOD PRISONER AND POSES NO PROBLEMS. (7) Information about the Chronology of the Case (a) Date of offense: 2/15/82 (b) Date of arrest: (DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST, HAVIN BEEN ARRESTED ON A MISDEMEANOR ON 2/16/82) 2/22/82 (c) Date trial began: (JURY SELECTION BEAN 9/15/82) TRIAL ORIINALLY SET FOR 4/19/82, AND CONTINUED AT DEFENDANT S REQUEST TO 8/9/82 OVER THE OBJECTION OF PLAINTIFF. TRIAL WAS AAIN CONTINUED TO 8/16/82 BECAUSE OF COURT S SCHEDULIN PROBLEMS; TRIAL WAS THEN CONTINUED TO 9/13/82 AT THE DEFENDANT S REQUEST AND OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL FOR ALL CONTINUANCES. 10/7/82
- 17 - (d) Date jury returned verdict: 10/28/82 (e) Date post-trial motions ruled on: 10/28/82,10/29/82, AND 11/29/82 (f) Date special sentencing proceeding began: 11/1/82 (g) Date sentence was imposed: 11/29/82 (h) Date this trial judge's report was completed: 11/29/82 JAMES MADDOCK TRIAL JUDE