Hey Ya'll,
I'm new here to this forum. I joined up specifically to let the Seattle hip-hop scene know some recent news regarding Mr John F Courtright aka Bobbi Spork. However, I've been looking around & this is a pretty fresh communication format y'all got here with a lot of good info regarding the local scene. Props.
Anyhow, just in case you have been wondering whatever happened to Bobby Spoon aka John Frederick Courtright here's some pulp non fiction fresh squeezed straight from the D.O.C.. & yeah, IT IS MOS DEFINITLY FUNKY ENUFF... Without further ado................................
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinionTextOnly&filename=589075MAJ&printOnly=y
DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 58907-5
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Resp. vs. John Courtright, App.
File Date: 11/05/2007
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from King County Superior Court
Docket No: 05-1-05020-5
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 09/11/2006
Judge signing: Honorable Laura Inveen
JUDGES
------
Authored by Anne Ellington
Concurring: C. Kenneth Grosse
H Joseph Coleman
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC
Attorney at Law
1908 E Madison St
Seattle, WA, 98122
Casey Grannis
Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC
1908 E Madison St
Seattle, WA, 98122-2842
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Prosecuting Atty King County
King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA, 98104
Cheryl L Snow
King Co Pros Office
W554
516 3rd Ave
Seattle, WA, 98104-2390
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 58907-5-I
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
JOHN FREDERICK COURTRIGHT, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. ) FILED: November 5, 2007
)
PER CURIAM -- John Courtright appeals his conviction for intimidating a
witness. Finding sufficient evidence to convict him of that charge and none to
support his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2004, Courtright initiated a relationship with 14-year-old K.M. over the
internet. He was 22 years old. Through email and online chat sessions, Courtright
convinced K.M. to meet him in person shortly after she turned 15. On their second
meeting and frequently thereafter, the two had sex. Despite growing reservations
and a temporary protection order obtained by K.M.'s mother, K.M. continued the
relationship for several months.
In February, K.M. was contacted by S.H., another teenage girl who told her
No. 58907-5-I/2
that Courtright was seeing her, as well as several other girls. When K.M. and S.H.
attempted to confront Courtright about his infidelity, S.H. threatened to have
Courtright thrown in jail.
K.M. met Courtright for the last time on February 28, 2005. The two had been
arguing about their relationship online, and K.M. agreed to meet Courtright at a
nearby middle school to talk in his car.
When K.M. got into the car, Courtright locked the doors and drove off over her
protests. Courtright was angry because he thought K.M. would report their
relationship to the police. While they were on the freeway, K.M. attempted to call
someone and Courtright grabbed her cell phone and threw it from the vehicle. He
punched K.M.'s face, head, and leg and shoved her head into the window. He then
warned her, "if [she] told the police, that he would find [her] and kill [her], and that
he's killed people before." Report of Proceedings (RP) (July 5, 2006) at 126. K.M.
believed Courtright. She felt threatened and worried that she "might get more hurt
than [she] was." Id. at 129. When Courtright eventually dropped K.M. off several
miles from her home, she ran to a nearby business and asked people there to call
the police.
The State charged Courtright with three counts of rape of a child in the third
degree, one count of intimidating a witness, and one count of tampering with a
witness. The jury convicted Courtright on all counts.
DISCUSSION
Courtright contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
2
No. 58907-5-I/3
intimidating a witness. Specifically, Courtright argues there was not sufficient
evidence to prove he threatened to cause "immediate" harm to K.M. We disagree.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after
viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wn.2d 703, 706, 974 P.2d 832 (1999). "When the
sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, all reasonable
inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted
most strongly against the defendant." State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829
P.2d 1068 (1992).
To convict Courtright of intimidating a witness, the jury had to find that he "by
use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to . . . . induce that
person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation." RCW
9A.72.110(1). The jury was instructed that threat "means to communicate, directly or
indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at
the time." Clerk's Papers at 52.
Courtright argues the State failed to prove he intended "immediately" to use
force against K.M. because Courtright merely told her that he "would" kill her in the
future if she reported their relationship to the police. The argument is without merit.
K.M. testified that Courtright's threat came after he had already struck her several
times, kept her in his car against her will, and destroyed her cell phone when she
tried to make a call. In this context, a rational trier of fact could find that Courtright
3
No. 58907-5-I/4
communicated "the intent immediately to use force."
Courtright also argues the prosecutor's statements denied him a fair trial. In
closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury:
And this is my perspective. You can completely disregard it if
you don't agree. Is there a little part of you that believes the reason he
is focusing on these girls who are black is that there is a hope that
maybe society just doesn't care? We will view it as less of a crime.
And I would suggest to you, I hope, that that is not even close to true.
Because I think it shows an even more concerning aspect of Mr.
Courtright's personality.
RP (July 13, 2006) at 685.
Courtright argues this remark inappropriately appealed to the passion or
prejudice of the jury and introduced facts not in evidence. He contends the
comments portrayed K.M. "not only as a victim of rape, but as a victim of racial
prejudice" whose testimony the jury would instinctively credit. Appellant's Brief at 13.
Courtright did not object to the argument. Failure to object waives any error
unless the remark is so flagrant and ill-intentioned as to cause an enduring prejudice
that could not have been neutralized with a curative instruction. State v. Russell,
125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994). While the prosecutor's comment does not
seem particularly useful, especially since she had earlier advised the jury that the
defendant's motives were immaterial,a curative instruction would have mitigated its
effect.
Further, the prosecutor's remarks must be viewed in the context of the total
argument, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the instructions given to the
jury. State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 561, 940 P.2d 546 (1997). The remark was
4
No. 58907-5-I/5
part of a lengthy argument. The evidence was that Courtright told K.M. he dated
only "black girls." The prosecutor suggested a motive for that. But as the prosecutor
also said, motive was irrelevant. It does not appear at all likely, however, that any
prejudice could have resulted from the remark. The jury had been properly
instructed that counsel's arguments were not in evidence, and that it must not decide
the case on sympathy, prejudice, or personal preference. Both counsel emphasized
this instruction in their arguments. We see no substantial likelihood that the
argument affected the verdict. See State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 887, 822 P.2d
177 (1991) (conviction will stand absent "substantial likelihood that the alleged
prosecutorial misconduct affected the verdict").
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
5
What was not explicated in better detail was the circumstances that occured when he threatened this girl. When he punched her he broke her nose, then beat her with his fists, leaving her nearly unconscious. He then sexually assaulted her, drove her to a remote location far from her home, stripped her naked & threw her out of his car, spit on her, threatened to kill her again & sped away. Shortly thereafter he called several of his friends & made up a story about how this girl was stalking him & trying to spread lies about him & defame his character.
It's a damn shame. I can't believe I used to consider this sick fuck a friend. I shoulda known something was wrong from jump street by how much this guy liked George W Bush & the Republican Party. For anyone interested in contacting him here you go:
DOC Number: 896584 Offender Name: COURTRIGHT, JOHN Location: Washington Corrections Center
I'll bet his fellow inmates are putting his namesake to imaginitive & fitting use.
Get it... SPOON.:lick::hurt::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead:
I'm writing this & sending it out to prominent members in Seattle's hip-hop community so that you will know the truth about Bobby Spoon so that he can no longer get away with deceiving, using or hurting anyone else. I don't believe in snitching or telling folks' business or making peoples affairs public. The only time I feel that this type of action is appropriate is when it involves the abuse of children & the physical or sexual abuse of women.
Please don't let this guy near your daughters, sisters, neices, cousins, girlfriends, mothers, wives, babies etc. He is a pathological liar, a rapist, a child molester & a conniving thief who will do his best to deceive his so called friends & associates to get what he wants. & yes, believe it or not, Bobby Spoon for sure & most certainly ain't the only sicko of his kind hanging around our scene. Be careful & stay positive Seattle. Peace, One Love & God Bless.
Famous Nobuddy
I'm new here to this forum. I joined up specifically to let the Seattle hip-hop scene know some recent news regarding Mr John F Courtright aka Bobbi Spork. However, I've been looking around & this is a pretty fresh communication format y'all got here with a lot of good info regarding the local scene. Props.
Anyhow, just in case you have been wondering whatever happened to Bobby Spoon aka John Frederick Courtright here's some pulp non fiction fresh squeezed straight from the D.O.C.. & yeah, IT IS MOS DEFINITLY FUNKY ENUFF... Without further ado................................
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinionTextOnly&filename=589075MAJ&printOnly=y
DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 58907-5
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Resp. vs. John Courtright, App.
File Date: 11/05/2007
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from King County Superior Court
Docket No: 05-1-05020-5
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 09/11/2006
Judge signing: Honorable Laura Inveen
JUDGES
------
Authored by Anne Ellington
Concurring: C. Kenneth Grosse
H Joseph Coleman
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC
Attorney at Law
1908 E Madison St
Seattle, WA, 98122
Casey Grannis
Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC
1908 E Madison St
Seattle, WA, 98122-2842
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Prosecuting Atty King County
King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA, 98104
Cheryl L Snow
King Co Pros Office
W554
516 3rd Ave
Seattle, WA, 98104-2390
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 58907-5-I
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
JOHN FREDERICK COURTRIGHT, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. ) FILED: November 5, 2007
)
PER CURIAM -- John Courtright appeals his conviction for intimidating a
witness. Finding sufficient evidence to convict him of that charge and none to
support his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2004, Courtright initiated a relationship with 14-year-old K.M. over the
internet. He was 22 years old. Through email and online chat sessions, Courtright
convinced K.M. to meet him in person shortly after she turned 15. On their second
meeting and frequently thereafter, the two had sex. Despite growing reservations
and a temporary protection order obtained by K.M.'s mother, K.M. continued the
relationship for several months.
In February, K.M. was contacted by S.H., another teenage girl who told her
No. 58907-5-I/2
that Courtright was seeing her, as well as several other girls. When K.M. and S.H.
attempted to confront Courtright about his infidelity, S.H. threatened to have
Courtright thrown in jail.
K.M. met Courtright for the last time on February 28, 2005. The two had been
arguing about their relationship online, and K.M. agreed to meet Courtright at a
nearby middle school to talk in his car.
When K.M. got into the car, Courtright locked the doors and drove off over her
protests. Courtright was angry because he thought K.M. would report their
relationship to the police. While they were on the freeway, K.M. attempted to call
someone and Courtright grabbed her cell phone and threw it from the vehicle. He
punched K.M.'s face, head, and leg and shoved her head into the window. He then
warned her, "if [she] told the police, that he would find [her] and kill [her], and that
he's killed people before." Report of Proceedings (RP) (July 5, 2006) at 126. K.M.
believed Courtright. She felt threatened and worried that she "might get more hurt
than [she] was." Id. at 129. When Courtright eventually dropped K.M. off several
miles from her home, she ran to a nearby business and asked people there to call
the police.
The State charged Courtright with three counts of rape of a child in the third
degree, one count of intimidating a witness, and one count of tampering with a
witness. The jury convicted Courtright on all counts.
DISCUSSION
Courtright contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
2
No. 58907-5-I/3
intimidating a witness. Specifically, Courtright argues there was not sufficient
evidence to prove he threatened to cause "immediate" harm to K.M. We disagree.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after
viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wn.2d 703, 706, 974 P.2d 832 (1999). "When the
sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, all reasonable
inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted
most strongly against the defendant." State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829
P.2d 1068 (1992).
To convict Courtright of intimidating a witness, the jury had to find that he "by
use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to . . . . induce that
person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation." RCW
9A.72.110(1). The jury was instructed that threat "means to communicate, directly or
indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at
the time." Clerk's Papers at 52.
Courtright argues the State failed to prove he intended "immediately" to use
force against K.M. because Courtright merely told her that he "would" kill her in the
future if she reported their relationship to the police. The argument is without merit.
K.M. testified that Courtright's threat came after he had already struck her several
times, kept her in his car against her will, and destroyed her cell phone when she
tried to make a call. In this context, a rational trier of fact could find that Courtright
3
No. 58907-5-I/4
communicated "the intent immediately to use force."
Courtright also argues the prosecutor's statements denied him a fair trial. In
closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury:
And this is my perspective. You can completely disregard it if
you don't agree. Is there a little part of you that believes the reason he
is focusing on these girls who are black is that there is a hope that
maybe society just doesn't care? We will view it as less of a crime.
And I would suggest to you, I hope, that that is not even close to true.
Because I think it shows an even more concerning aspect of Mr.
Courtright's personality.
RP (July 13, 2006) at 685.
Courtright argues this remark inappropriately appealed to the passion or
prejudice of the jury and introduced facts not in evidence. He contends the
comments portrayed K.M. "not only as a victim of rape, but as a victim of racial
prejudice" whose testimony the jury would instinctively credit. Appellant's Brief at 13.
Courtright did not object to the argument. Failure to object waives any error
unless the remark is so flagrant and ill-intentioned as to cause an enduring prejudice
that could not have been neutralized with a curative instruction. State v. Russell,
125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994). While the prosecutor's comment does not
seem particularly useful, especially since she had earlier advised the jury that the
defendant's motives were immaterial,a curative instruction would have mitigated its
effect.
Further, the prosecutor's remarks must be viewed in the context of the total
argument, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the instructions given to the
jury. State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 561, 940 P.2d 546 (1997). The remark was
4
No. 58907-5-I/5
part of a lengthy argument. The evidence was that Courtright told K.M. he dated
only "black girls." The prosecutor suggested a motive for that. But as the prosecutor
also said, motive was irrelevant. It does not appear at all likely, however, that any
prejudice could have resulted from the remark. The jury had been properly
instructed that counsel's arguments were not in evidence, and that it must not decide
the case on sympathy, prejudice, or personal preference. Both counsel emphasized
this instruction in their arguments. We see no substantial likelihood that the
argument affected the verdict. See State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 887, 822 P.2d
177 (1991) (conviction will stand absent "substantial likelihood that the alleged
prosecutorial misconduct affected the verdict").
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
5
What was not explicated in better detail was the circumstances that occured when he threatened this girl. When he punched her he broke her nose, then beat her with his fists, leaving her nearly unconscious. He then sexually assaulted her, drove her to a remote location far from her home, stripped her naked & threw her out of his car, spit on her, threatened to kill her again & sped away. Shortly thereafter he called several of his friends & made up a story about how this girl was stalking him & trying to spread lies about him & defame his character.
It's a damn shame. I can't believe I used to consider this sick fuck a friend. I shoulda known something was wrong from jump street by how much this guy liked George W Bush & the Republican Party. For anyone interested in contacting him here you go:
DOC Number: 896584 Offender Name: COURTRIGHT, JOHN Location: Washington Corrections Center
I'll bet his fellow inmates are putting his namesake to imaginitive & fitting use.
Get it... SPOON.:lick::hurt::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead:
I'm writing this & sending it out to prominent members in Seattle's hip-hop community so that you will know the truth about Bobby Spoon so that he can no longer get away with deceiving, using or hurting anyone else. I don't believe in snitching or telling folks' business or making peoples affairs public. The only time I feel that this type of action is appropriate is when it involves the abuse of children & the physical or sexual abuse of women.
Please don't let this guy near your daughters, sisters, neices, cousins, girlfriends, mothers, wives, babies etc. He is a pathological liar, a rapist, a child molester & a conniving thief who will do his best to deceive his so called friends & associates to get what he wants. & yes, believe it or not, Bobby Spoon for sure & most certainly ain't the only sicko of his kind hanging around our scene. Be careful & stay positive Seattle. Peace, One Love & God Bless.
Famous Nobuddy
