Washington v. Recuenco
Recuenco was charged with second degree assault with a deadly weapon enhancement. At trial, the state presented evidence that the deadly weapon was a handgun and the jury returned a guilty verdict on the assault charge and a special verdict that Recuenco was armed with a deadly weapon. The trial court enhanced Recuenco's sentence based on his being armed with a firearm, which carries a greater enhancement (three years) than being armed with a deadly weapon (one year).
Recuenco appealed, arguing that the firearm enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the jury did not find that he was armed with a firearm. The Washington State Court denied his appeal. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed, holding that the imposition of a firearm enhancement without a jury finding that Recuenco was armed with a firearm violated Recuenco's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as defined by Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Question Presented:
Whether error as to the definition of a sentencing enhancement should be subject to a harmless error analysis where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt
that the error did not contribute to the verdict on the enhancement?
