Case Brief: State v. Stark

Case: State v. Stark, 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992)

Facts:

• Defendant Stark tested positive for HIV, which was confirmed by two follow-up tests; defendant received five counseling sessions on “safe sex”, the risk of spreading the infection, and the necessity of informing his partners of his status before engaging in sexual activity.
• The county health officer learned that the defendant had disregarded the advice and counseling and issued a cease a desist order as authorized by state statute.
• Defendant did not head the cease and desist order; the health officer then requested judicial enforcement of the order and was advised to file a police report.
• Testimony was obtained from the three victims confirming sexual acts took place after the defendant was made aware of and counseled about his HIV-positive status, as well as the defendant’s neighbor who testified that the defendant had stated “I don’t care. If I’m going to die, everybody’s going to die.”

Procedural Posture: 

• Defendant Stark was charged with second degree assault on three counts; he had tested positive for HIV and although he received counseling on safe sex practices on several occasions, he continued to engage in sexual activity with three women, exposing them to the HIV virus. 
• Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of one count of second degree assault and received on exceptional sentence of 120 months in prison. 
• Defendant was convicted on two counts of second degree assault in a bench trial and sentenced of two 43 month sentences, to be served concurrently, and consecutively to the first sentence. 
• Defendant sought review of the court judgment that imposed a sentenced that exceeded the standard range for second degree assault.

Issue:

• Did the state violate confidentially by making the defendant's HIV-positive status public in a criminal trial?
• Was the evidence submitted by the prosecution sufficient to show the defendant's intent to inflict bodily harm?
• Is the statute used to convict the defendant unconstitutionally vague?
• Was the trial court remiss in imposing an exceptional sentence on first charge?

Holding decision:

The court affirmed the convictions on all three counts, but remanded the case back to the trial court for re-sentencing on the first count.

Reasoning:

• The court found that in the county health officer did not violate the defendant’s confidentiality by discussing Stark’s IV-positive status with the prosecutor. RCW 70.24.034(1) and RCW 70.24.034(2) allow the heath official to use court action to detain a person dangerous to the public health and specifically mentions involving the prosecuting attorney. 
•  The court found that there was sufficient evidence through victim testimony, the county health officer's testimony, and witness testimony,that the defendant knowingly and intentionally exposed his victims to HIV. 
• The court found that the statute used to convict the defendant is not unconstitutionally vague. The court reasoned that a statute is not unconstitutionally vague just because a person cannot know exactly the moment his actions become prohibited. 
• The court found that the trial court was not justified in imposing an exceptional sentence; it cannot use a threat of potential future dangerousness to hand out a sentence significantly longer than the standard sentence. This charge was remanded for re-sentencing.