Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 95-1-05100-2. Date filed: 11/06/95. Judge signing: Hon. Kathleen J. Learned .
PER CURIAM -- Emil Haag appeals his convictions for felony harassment and felony violation of a no-contact order. He challenges his conviction for felony harassment, arguing the trial court erred by failing to include the essential element of a threat of future harm in the to-convict instruction and that the evidence is insufficient on this omitted element.
We agree the trial court erred and accept the State's concession of error.
Regarding his conviction for violation of a no-contact order, Haag argues the court erred by failing to give a unanimity instruction on which assaultive act formed the basis of the charge. However, the assaults, which took place in a single location over a short period of time and involved a singular purpose, were part of a continuous course of conduct.
Because the unanimity rule does not apply to continuous conduct, Haag was not deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict.
We accelerate review under RAP 18.12. We reverse and dismiss Haag's conviction for felony harassment, but affirm the conviction for felony violation of a no-contact order.
Trial Testimony Emil Haag and K.M. began dating in July 1993. From the beginning, Haag abused K.M., shoving and pushing her and calling her insulting names.
On September 30, 1994, Haag was sentenced for felony harassment of K.M.
The court issued a no-contact order prohibiting Haag from any contact with K.M.
However, upon his release from jail about a month later, they began seeing each again. Initially, the relationship improved. But as the months passed, Haag became increasingly abusive. Between June and July of 1995, he assaulted K.M. several times.
The instant charges arise from events in the early morning hours of July 29, 1995. At approximately 3 a.m., Haag was pounding on K.M.'s front door. He was intoxicated and angry that she had locked him out of the house. She refused to let him in, and he walked down the street yelling at her and calling her names.
About 20 minutes later, K.M. heard someone forcing open the garage door. She got out of bed and went to the garage, where she found Haag. He threatened to break a window if K.M. refused to allow him to enter.
Fearing damage to the rented house, she let him in.
For approximately the next hour, Haag verbally abused and physically assaulted K.M. He pushed and shoved her. He backhanded her, splitting her lip. After pushing her onto the sofa, he choked her. When she tried to escape to the bedroom, he followed her and choked her. She began to loose consciousness and became weak. As she sat on the bed, he choked her again, telling her he could kill her in ".02 seconds. I ought to." When he put his forearm around her neck, K.M. begged him to stop. Her pleas stopped the abuse, Haag professed his love for her and asked if he could join her in bed. She said no and asked him to sleep in the living room.
K.M. testified that as she lay awake for the next several hours, she realized she could no longer endure the ...