## Facts

- Roland C. Dent was on parole and in a relationship with Ann Powell.
- Powell reported to Dent’s parole officer that Dent had assaulted her, and Dent’s parole was revoked.
- While jailed, Dent met Carlos A. Balcinde, and the two discussed killing Powell.
- After Dent was transferred to the Shelton Corrections Center, he used his girlfriend, Joyful Tryon, to communicate with Balcinde and move the plan forward.
- Dent asked Tryon to forward letters to Balcinde using a different or false return address.
- Dent instructed Tryon to provide Balcinde with Tryon’s handgun after removing the serial number and reporting the gun stolen.
- Dent asked Tryon to set aside $300 to $400 to pay Balcinde, pick Balcinde up when he was released, show Balcinde a video of Powell, and show Balcinde where Powell lived.
- Dent told Tryon the gun was going to be used to kill Powell; in a recorded call, Dent said Powell had to be killed because the parole board would not release him if someone feared him.
- Tryon’s sons persuaded her to report the plan to police, leading to an undercover operation.
- An officer posed as Tryon and picked Balcinde up upon his release; during the encounter, Balcinde confirmed the plan.
- Balcinde was arrested when he reached for the money the officer presented as payment.
- Dent and Balcinde were jointly tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct that conspiracy’s “substantial step” requirement must be “more than mere preparation,” and instead instructing that it requires conduct that “strongly indicates a criminal purpose.”
2. Whether the jury had to be instructed that venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether venue in Snohomish County was properly established.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Balcinde took a substantial step toward the object of the conspiracy.
4. Whether Balcinde was entitled to relief based on the admission of Dent’s out-of-court statements at their joint trial.
5. Whether the trial court should have granted mandatory or discretionary severance.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The “substantial step” instruction defining the element as conduct that “strongly indicates a criminal purpose” correctly stated Washington law; the court declined to add a “more than mere preparation” requirement.
- The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct that venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; the instructions sufficiently required proof that the crime occurred in Washington, and the evidence showed overt acts supporting Snohomish County venue.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find a substantial step, including communications arranging the killing, the payment plan, the gun plan, and Balcinde’s confirmation of the plan and attempt to take the money during the undercover pickup.
- Balcinde’s challenge to Dent’s out-of-court statements did not warrant reversal because the issue was not properly preserved through appropriate requests (such as redaction or limiting relief).
- Denial of severance was upheld because Balcinde did not show manifest prejudice from a joint trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 9A.28.040(1), a “substantial step” toward conspiracy is conduct that “strongly indicates a criminal purpose”; courts need not add a separate “more than mere preparation” phrase if the instruction accurately conveys the statutory standard.
- Venue is a constitutional right to be tried in the county where the offense is charged to have been committed, but a special beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction on venue is not required where the instructions and proof establish that venue is proper.
- For conspiracy, venue may be established by proof that an overt act in furtherance of the agreement occurred in the county of prosecution.
- Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Claims of error based on a codefendant’s statements require timely, specific steps at trial to preserve the issue (for example, requesting redaction or a limiting instruction).
- Joint trials are favored; severance is required only when a defendant shows manifest prejudice that prevents a fair determination of guilt or innocence as to each defendant.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Dent’s and Balcinde’s conspiracy-to-commit-first-degree-murder convictions, holding that the jury was properly instructed that a substantial step is conduct strongly indicating a criminal purpose (without adding “more than mere preparation”), that no venue-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction was required and venue was supported by overt acts in Snohomish County, and that Balcinde’s remaining challenges—sufficiency, Dent’s statements, and severance—did not justify reversal.


State v. Dent, 123 Wash. 2d 467, 869 P.2d 392 (1994)