Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,791 chars

The spreading of false information would affect the credibility of the witnesses and

subject them to ridicule and hatred for also violating the same policy for which the

sheriff was under investigation (appropriating county ammunition). There is a

reasonable inference that in spreading a false accusation about the commanders,

akin to the crime for which he was being investigated, that Sheriff Hatcher

intended to influence their testimony in the investigation and any further

proceedings or to attack their credibility, which would affect and interfere with

their performance of their official duties.

As to intimidation of public servants, Sergeant Erickson alleges that Sheriff

Hatcher also used this threat to attempt to influence the official action of the

commanders, who at the time were police officers and, thus, public servants. He

38
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

alleges that because the commanders had a duty to report any crimes committed by

the sheriff, he attempted to influence their official action by spreading the

accusation and making them fear for their jobs. These facts, in conjunction with the

entire context of retaliation and intimidation establish a prima facie case that

Sheriff Hatcher did knowingly and intentionally violate the laws of intimidating

witnesses and public servants.

Sheriff Hatcher does not make any argument as to the legal sufficiency of

these charges but, instead, focuses on facts and alleged political motivations in the

present recalls, neither of which we are to consider. Accordingly, the voters could

find that these acts amount to misfeasance and a violation of the oath of office.