State of Washington v. Johan Martin Filla

FILED
APRIL 22,2014
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, 	)
) 	No. 	31458-8-111
Respondent, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
JOHAN MARTIN FILLA, 	) 	UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. 	)
KORSMO, J. - 	A Columbia County jury found Johan Filla guilty of one count of
unlawful display ofa firearm under RCW 9.41.270(1). Mr. Filla challenges the
constitutionality of this statute as applied to him. 	We affirm.
FACTS
In the late hours of May 27,2012, Mr. Filla and his then girl friend went to the
home of an acquaintance to collect on a debt. A dispute ensued, and Mr. Filla eventually
pulled out a firearm. 	The State charged Mr. Filla with one count of unlawful display of a
firearm and one count of assault in the second degree. At the trial, Mr. Filla admitted to
carrying his pistol, but claimed that he did not remove it from his waistband that night.
The acquaintance and her boyfriend, however, testified that Mr. Filla took out his pistol

No. 31458-8-111
State v. Filla
and either pointed or waived it at the acquaintance. The jury found Mr. Filla guilty on
the unlawful display charge and not guilty on the assault charge. He then timely appealed
to this court.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Filla's sole argument on appeal is that RCW 9.41.270(1) is unconstitutionally
void for vagueness as applied to the facts of this case. "A statute is presumed
constitutional and the party challenging the constitutionality of a legislative enactment
has the burden of proving it is unconstitutionally vague." State v. Maciolek, 10 1 Wn.2d
259,263,676 P.2d 996 (1984). An as applied challenge asks whether "the statute as
applied to the particular facts of the case and the party's conduct" is so indefinite as to
fail to "provide ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement."
State v. Peterson, 174 Wn. App. 828, 845,301 P.3d 1060 (2013).
Mr. Filla argues that RCW 9.41.270(1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied
because it did not put him on notice that he could be convicted under the statute for
simply carrying a firearm in his waistband. This section ofthe statute reads:
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any
firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club,
or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a
manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests
an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other
persons.
RCW 9.41.270(1).
2

No. 31458~8~III
State v. Filla
Mr. Filla argues that the jury believed his version of events because it acquitted
him on the assault charge. However, the fact that the jury acquitted Mr. Filla does not
necessarily mean that the jury accepted his version of events; it simply means that the
State did not meet its burden of proving the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on
the record, it is possible that the jury could have found that Mr. Filla pulled the weapon
from his waistband without committing the crime of assault in the second degree for
several reasons: there was no intentional touching, no intent to inflict bodily injury, no
intent to create an apprehension and fear of bodily injury, or the drawing of the weapon
did not in fact create in another a reasonable apprehension and imminent fear of bodily
InJury.
In contrast, the statute clearly told Mr. Filla that displaying a weapon with the
intent to intimidate the people from whom he was trying to collect a debt was illegal.
The verdict does necessarily show that the jury believed that portion of the victims'
testimony. The statute was not vague as to that conduct.
Because Mr. Filla has failed to establish that the jury believed his version of
events, his as applied challenge necessarily fails.
3

No. 31458-8-II1
State v. Filla
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
-3;~~ttCJ:Fearin 	. 	J.
4