Volume 21 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Effect.</bold> The presence of exigent circumstances may justify an immediate forced entry by police officers without compliance with the requirements of the knock and wait rule (RCW <cross_reference>10.31.040</cross_reference>). <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Determination.</bold> The presence or absence of exigent circumstances sufficient to constitute an exception to the knock and wait rule is a factual determination to be made by the trial court in light of the constitutional standards, the credibility of the witnesses, and the reasonableness of the action under the circumstances. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Potential Danger.</bold> Substantial evidence of specific danger to police officers executing a warrant may be sufficient to justify a failure to comply with the requirements of the knock and wait rule.

<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Meaning of Words — In General.</bold> In the absence of a definition within a statute, the words contained therein are given their ordinary and usual meaning. <bold>[2] Privacy — Evidence — Recording Private Communication — What</bold> <bold>Constitutes.</bold> Whether a telephone conversation is a private communication within the meaning of RCW <cross_reference>9.73.030</cross_reference>, which regulates the recording of such communications, depends upon the intent or reasonable expectations of the participants as manifested by the facts and circumstances of each case. <bold>[3] Privacy — Evidence — Recording Private Communication —</bold> <bold>Extortion.</bold> A telephone call made for the purpose of stating an extortion demand to be communicated to others by the party who answered the call cannot be said to have been intended as a private communication for purposes of RCW <cross_reference>9.73.030</cross_reference>. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Confessions — Voluntariness —</bold> <bold>Considerations.</bold> In determining whether the conduct of police officers in any way improperly produced a confession, the court should consider the experience of a young defendant in police and judicial matters as well as his age and weaknesses. <bold>[5] Criminal Law — Confessions — Tape Recording and Transcript —</bold> <bold>Admission of Both.</bold> A tape recording of a confession and a typed transcript of the recording may both be admitted into evidence at the discretion of the trial court. The court should consider the ease of jurors in hearing or reading the confession as well as avoiding overemphasis. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Evidence — Photographs — Gruesome Aspect —</bold> <bold>Discretion of Court.</bold> Photographs are not inadmissible as evidence merely because they are gruesome. Their admission is discretionary with the trial court upon a balancing of the probative value of the photographs against their prejudicial effect. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Evidence — Rebuttal Testimony — Discretion of</bold> <bold>Court.</bold> Rebuttal testimony is proper to answer new matter presented by the defendant, and its admission is a matter of discretion for the trial court. <bold>[8] Criminal Law — Statutes — Construction — Penal Provisions.</bold> Strict construction of penal statutes requires only that sanctions be confined to those matters clearly within the terms of<page_number>Page 856</page_number> the statute, and does not mean that a narrow construction should be applied to defeat the intent of the statute. <bold>[9] Homicide — Aggravated First-Degree Murder — Single Act —</bold> <bold>What Constitutes.</bold> Under RCW 9A.32.045(6), which defines aggravated first-degree murder as including multiple murders resulting from a single act, the commission of a single felony, such as robbery, will constitute a "single act." <bold>[10] Criminal Law — Punishment — Life Imprisonment Without</bold> <bold>Parole — Statutory Provisions.</bold> RCW 9A.32.047 does not require the United States Supreme Court or the Washington Supreme Court to determine a specific state death penalty provision unconstitutional in order for a court to sentence a person convicted of aggravated first-degree murder to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. <bold>[11] Criminal Law — Punishment — Cruel and Unusual Punishment —</bold> <bold>Determination.</bold> Whether punishment is cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution depends upon whether, in view of contemporary standards of elemental decency, the punishment is of such disproportionate character to the offense as to shock the general conscience and violate principles of fundamental fairness. <bold>[12] Criminal Law — Punishment — Life Imprisonment Without</bold> <bold>Parole — Validity.</bold> A sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the crime of aggravated first-degree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment per se, and must be measured against the circumstances of the specific crime involved in each instance.