## Facts

- Gene Patton received a phone call at home on February 26, 1984 and told his girlfriend the caller was his stepson, James R. Terrovona, who needed help because he had run out of gas on 116th Street in Marysville.
- Patton left home shortly after the call to assist Terrovona.
- Around 8:30 p.m., a passerby found Patton’s body near a car on 116th Street; he had been beaten and shot, and an autopsy attributed death to gunshots to the head and abdomen.
- A gasoline can was near Patton’s car, and officers observed a tire tread impression on the road shoulder and made a cast.
- Investigators suspected Terrovona based on known hostility and prior threats against Patton.
- After learning Terrovona’s address and vehicle, officers went to his apartment complex around 1:00 a.m., saw a Ford Elite, and believed its right-front tire closely matched the tread impression at the scene.
- Deputies went to Terrovona’s apartment door without an arrest warrant; when he opened the door, they arrested and handcuffed him and took him into the apartment.
- Police obtained evidence from the apartment and vehicle through a combination of observations during entry, later searches, and warrants.
- At trial, the court admitted the girlfriend’s testimony about Patton’s statements describing the call and his reason for leaving, over hearsay objections.
- Terrovona was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s statements to his girlfriend identifying Terrovona as the caller and describing his plan to meet and help him were admissible under the hearsay state-of-mind exception and consistent with confrontation limits.
2. Whether the warrantless arrest at Terrovona’s apartment was lawful under probable cause and exigent circumstances principles applicable to home arrests.
3. Whether physical evidence obtained from the apartment and vehicle should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest or unlawful searches, or was admissible under exceptions and/or warrants.
4. Whether evidence of prior hostility and threats was properly admitted to show motive.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the victim’s statements were admissible under the state-of-mind doctrine to show his intent and subsequent conduct, notwithstanding their inculpatory effect.
- The court held the warrantless home arrest was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances.
- The court upheld admission of challenged physical evidence from the apartment and vehicle, including evidence obtained in plain view and evidence seized under valid warrants.
- The court upheld admission of motive evidence regarding prior hostility and threats, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s balancing.

## Legal Principles

- A declarant’s out-of-court statements reflecting then-existing intent may be admitted to prove the declarant’s subsequent conduct when relevant and sufficiently reliable.
- The fact that a state-of-mind statement strongly implicates a defendant does not bar admission if used within the permitted purpose and supported by indicia of trustworthiness.
- Warrantless entry to arrest a suspect in a residence is generally prohibited absent a warrant, but may be permitted when officers have probable cause and exigent circumstances.
- Exigent circumstances may include the gravity and recency of a violent offense, reasonable safety concerns, and concrete risks of flight or destruction of evidence if officers delay for a warrant.
- Physical evidence is admissible when obtained through lawful warrant execution, plain-view observations during a lawful presence, or where the underlying entry/arrest is justified so exclusionary-rule “fruit” analysis does not require suppression.
- Prior threats and hostility may be admitted to prove motive if the trial court reasonably finds probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Terrovona’s first-degree murder conviction, ruling that the victim’s intent statements were properly admitted, the warrantless apartment arrest was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the resulting physical and motive evidence was not subject to suppression.


State v. Terrovona, 716 P.2d 295 (Wash. 1986)