Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source
Official source

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,760 chars
Sheriff Hatcher met with Sergeant Erickson and agreed to conduct a criminal and

administrative investigation into the ammunition, 2 he asked Commander Caughey

about the status of the redistribution of ammunition. Commander Caughey told

him that he had not done so. Sheriff Hatcher told Commander Caughey to follow

through with the original request, but Commander Caughey expressed his concern

given the possibility that it was evidence of a crime.

2
The circumstances surrounding this conversation are discussed in detail in Part 3.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

There is a reasonable inference that Sheriff Hatcher both knowingly and

intentionally violated the law. This court looked at the “intent to violate the law”

requirement in In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 10 P.3d 1034

(2000). In that case, the recall petitioner alleged that Pearsall-Stipek had committed

multiple acts of false swearing. The court held that when Pearsall-Stipek misstated

the dates she attended college, it was insufficient to show that she intended to

violate the law. Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d at 779. However, in another trial, on

the transcript page after she swore her oath, she falsely testified that she had

received a college degree. Id. The court held that the untruthfulness so soon after

her oath was sufficient to show she intended to violate the law. Id. Much like

Pearsall-Stipek, where the elected official had just been reminded of the law

against false swearing, Sheriff Hatcher had just come out of a meeting with

Sergeant Erickson and Commander Croskrey in which he agreed to investigate the