Prosecutors push to clarify Washington's hate crime law
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Maura Losch/Axios
King County prosecutors want state legislators to tweak how Washington defines a hate crime, which they say would make the anti-bias law easier to enforce.
Why it matters: Local prosecutors say that they've struggled to get a conviction in some cases that involve racial or anti-LGBTQ bias simply because the perpetrators may have had other motives, too.
What they're saying: "Jurors are interpreting the law to require that a defendant's bias be the only motive," Yessenia Manzo, a prosecutor who handles hate crimes in the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, told a panel of state senators this month.
- That's a problem "because most hate crimes are mixed-motive," Manzo said.
- Even in cases where bias is the driving factor, "every defendant comes up with some sort of other excuse for their violence," Manzo told members of the state Senate Law & Justice Committee during a public hearing last week.
The latest: House Bill 1052 would amend state law so a hate crime wouldn't be defined as a crime committed "because of" a victim's race or identity, but "in whole or in part because of" such factors.
- The bill, which the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office is supporting, passed out of the Senate committee Thursday.
Zoom in: During a House committee hearing in January, Manzo highlighted a case in which King County prosecutors say they were unable to get a conviction on a hate crime charge because jurors thought bias wasn't the sole motive.
- In that case, prosecutors said the defendant berated a Black neighbor, used a racial slur and threatened to shoot the neighbor and his dogs, blaming sleep deprivation for his behavior, Manzo said. The defendant was convicted of harassment but not of the hate crime charge.
The other side: State Rep. Hunter Abell (R-Inchelium) said during a House floor debate last month that the "in whole or in part" language of House Bill 1052 "is so broad as to be effectively meaningless."
- Opponents said the bill also raises concerns about freedom of expression.
- "We need to proceed very carefully when we regulate speech," state Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) said on the House floor.
What's next: The bill has been amended since it passed the state House on a 61-31 vote last month.
- That means even if it clears the state Senate, it will need to go back to the House for final approval.
- The legislative session is scheduled to run through April 27.