* State of Washington v. Donny James St. Peter

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
DONNY JAMES ST. PETER,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 34854-7-III
(consolidated with
No. 34855-5-III)
PUBLISHED OPINION
P ENNELL, J. — A jury convicted Donny James St. Peter of several felonies.
On appeal, Mr. St. Peter argues the trial court failed, sua sponte, to instruct the jury that
it must deliberate only when all twelve jurors are assembled together in the jury room.
We affirm.
FACTS
The facts of Mr. St. Peter’s case are not pertinent to the arguments on appeal. In
brief, the trial judge issued standard Washington pattern criminal jury instructions at the
close of trial. No exceptions were taken by either party. Jury deliberations lasted less
than an hour. The jury then rendered guilty verdicts on all crimes charged.
FILED
JANUARY 9, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Nos. 34854-7-III; 34855-5-III
State v. St. Peter
2
ANALYSIS
Mr. St. Peter argues he was denied his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict
when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must deliberate only when all twelve
jurors are assembled together in the jury room. Because Mr. St. Peter did not raise this
issue at the time of trial, our review turns on whether Mr. St. Peter can establish a
“manifest error affecting a constitutional right” as contemplated by RAP 2.5(a)(3).
Mr. St. Peter has not met the applicable standard for appellate review of an
unpreserved error. Although Mr. St. Peter had a constitutional right to ensure all
12 jurors participated in deliberations, State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576, 580, 584-85,
327 P.3d 46 (2014), there are no facts suggesting this did not occur. To establish
manifest error, “[t]he defendant must make a plausible showing that [an alleged] error”
affected his or her rights at trial and “resulted in actual prejuidice, which means that the
claimed error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.” Id. at 583. No
such showing has been made. Mr. St. Peter’s speculation that a juror may have left the
jury room during deliberations or that a postverdict jury poll could have revealed a
nonunanimous verdict1 is insufficient to warrant review under RAP 2.5(a)(3).
1 Mr. St. Peter declined the trial court’s offer to have the jury polled.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Nos. 34854-7-111; 34855-5-111
State v. St. Peter
Our court has rejected arguments identical to the ones raised by Mr. St. Peter in at
least three unpublished decisions: State v. Tucker, No. 33714-6-111 (Wash. Ct. App.
Oct. 25 , 2016) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/337l46_unp.pdf,
review denied, 187 Wn.2d 1022 (2017); State v. Walsh , No. 34396-1-111 (Wash. Ct. App.
July 18 , 2017) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/34396 l _ unp.pdf;
and State v. Burrill, No 34079-1-111 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/ pdf/34079l_unp.pdf. We reject Mr. St. Peter' s
assignment of error for the reasons previously articulated in Tucker, Walsh , and Burrill.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Mr. St. Peter' s motion to not award
appellate costs is granted.
Pennell, L
WE CONCUR:
Fearini,c.J '
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.