A panel of judges from the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II, visited Vancouver on Friday to hear oral arguments in three cases, including one in which a Portland man was sentenced to 30 years in prison for beating and raping a former girlfriend.
In May 2014, a Clark County Superior Court jury found Charles E. Paschal guilty of first-degree assault, first-degree rape and unlawful imprisonment. He received an exceptionally long sentence, in part because the crimes were committed in the presence of children.
The former Oregon state wrestling champion attacked a 32-year-old Clark County woman on St. Patrick’s Day 2013, in what the victim described as hours of torture. She said the children eventually distracted Paschal, allowing her to escape. Wearing only a bra and seriously injured, she scaled two fences in the dark and knocked on the door of a nearby home to summon help, according to testimony at Paschal’s trial.
On Friday, the appellate attorneys in the case each had 15 minutes to present their arguments to the panel.
According to a brief filed by Paschal’s appellate attorney, Jodi Backlund of Olympia, there were several errors committed during the trial. She argued that Judge Suzan Clark erred by allowing evidence to be presented of a prior altercation between the couple. That evidence prejudiced Paschal, the brief says. Backlund also argued that the assault and rape were one crime and the convictions should be merged. Because of these issues and others at trial, she also said Paschal received ineffective assistance of counsel.
In her brief, Senior Deputy Prosecutor Anne Cruser argued that evidence of the past assault was properly admitted during the trial. She said that Paschal, prior to trial, had intended to argue self-defense and claim the woman was the aggressor. Cruser argued that introducing the prior assault spoke to the victim’s credibility, why she didn’t fight back and her state of mind at trial.
As to the argument that Paschal’s convictions should be merged, Cruser countered that the crimes are distinct and that the rape was not incidental to the assault. She additionally argued in the brief that Paschal has not proven his trial attorney’s decisions prejudiced him or affected the outcome of the case.
The appeals court could affirm Paschal’s convictions and sentence, order a resentencing, or reverse his convictions, in which case he may be tried again.
An opinion likely won’t be issued for several months.
