Washington Appellate Court Reverses Parole Revocation Based on Hearsay
On April 2, 2024, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, reversed a decision by the state’s Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) that relied only on hearsay evidence to sustain a criminal charge underlying a parole violation.
In 2020, ISRB released Lorne Blaylock from prison and transferred him to community supervision by the state Department of Corrections (DOC). Blaylock, who is mentally ill, was living in transitional housing with 10 others on February 1, 2021, when he had a verbal altercation with housemate Matthew Walker. Recording the incident on his cellphone, Walker asked Blaylock, “You’re going to stab me with a knife?” Blaylock responded, “I’m going to stab you with a knife.” Walker said, “Is that how it’s gonna be?” Blaylock replied, “That’s how it’s gonna be.” The video then ended, and Walker called 911.
Blaylock was arrested for felony harassment by making death threats. He was convicted by a jury, but the prosecutor subsequently stipulated that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, since it was not shown that Walker was actually afraid that Blaylock would carry out his threat—an essential element of a felony harassment charge. The charge was then dismissed with prejudice.
In the interim between Blaylock’s conviction and dismissal of the charge, ISRB held a revocation hearing following. Based on the conviction, it revoked his parole and imposed an 18-month prison sentence. After the conviction was vacated, ISRB held a second hearing.
Walker did not testify at the second hearing. The only evidence establishing that he was actually afraid that Blaylock would carry out his threat was a transcript of Walker’s trial testimony and a police report, in which Walker allegedly stated that he “was afraid that Blaylock would stab him[.]” Blaylock objected that nothing but this hearsay supported a finding that he was guilty of harassment. But ISRB held that the cellphone video corroborated the hearsay evidence. It then affirmed its prior determination that Blaylock had violated the terms of his parole by committing harassment against Walker.
Blaylock appealed, and the Court of Appeals began its analysis by noting that ISRB’s own rules state that “[n]o finding of a violation of conditions may be based on hearsay evidence alone,” codified in WAC 381-100-290(2). In this case, Blaylock was accused of violating his conditions of release by committing simple harassment against his roommate. Such a charge requires proof of a threat and proof that the person threatened reasonably “fear[s] that the threat will be carried out,” as spelled out in RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b).
Blaylock argued that the police report and trial transcript were the only evidence potentially showing that Walker reasonably feared Blaylock’s threat, and that such evidence is hearsay. ISRB argued that the cellphone video was not hearsay, so the violation determination was therefore not based “solely” on hearsay evidence. Blaylock agreed that the video was not hearsay but nonetheless asserted that nothing in the video established the reasonable fear element of the harassment charge. Rather, he argued, ISRB’s decision violated WAC 381-100-290(2) because only hearsay established one of two elements necessary for a harassment charge.
The appellate court sided with Blaylock, holding that “the only reasonable interpretation of WAC 381-100-290(2) is that each element of a violation cannot be based on hearsay evidence alone.” In this case, nothing in the video demonstrated that Blaylock’s threat caused his housemate reasonable fear. Walker “deliberately encountered Blaylock and then briefly spoke to him in a calm tone while recording the interaction.” The only evidence indicating that Walker might have feared him was the police report and trial transcript, both of which are hearsay evidence. Thus, the Court concluded, ISRB violated WAC 381-100-290(2) by finding that Blaylock committed harassment because the second element of that charge was based “solely” on hearsay evidence. Blaylock’s personal restraint petition was therefore granted and the matter remanded to ISRB to vacate the violation determination. See: In re Pers. Restraint of Blaylock, 30 Wn. App. 2d 569 (2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login