## Facts

- Yvonne L. Wanrow, a 5’4” woman with a broken leg using a cast and crutches, stayed overnight at Shirley Hooper’s home after concerns about a neighborhood man, William “Bill” Wesler, and alleged misconduct toward children.
- Hooper reported that Wanrow’s son described an adult man attempting to pull him from his bicycle and drag him into a house; Hooper’s daughter identified Wesler as a man who had previously molested her.
- Hooper received additional information that Wesler had tried to molest another young boy and had been committed to a state hospital.
- Police advised Hooper that an immediate arrest was not available and that she could pursue a complaint later; Hooper requested that Wanrow and others stay for protection.
- In the early morning, Wanrow’s brother-in-law went to bring Wesler to the home; Wesler arrived visibly intoxicated and entered while other men remained outside.
- Inside, Wesler was told to leave but refused, leading to shouting and confusion.
- Wanrow moved toward the door to seek help; when she turned back, she found Wesler immediately behind her and, fearing harm, shot and killed him.
- Hooper called police; the emergency call was automatically recorded, including statements by Wanrow, without her express knowledge or consent.

## Issues

1. Whether the recorded emergency call was a “private communication” and inadmissible under Washington’s Privacy Act despite statutory authorization to record emergency communications.
2. Whether the self-defense instructions were prejudicially erroneous by limiting the jury to events “at or immediately before the killing” and by failing to assess reasonableness from a person in the defendant’s situation, including her sex, size, and physical condition, and her prior knowledge of the victim.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed reversal of Wanrow’s convictions and ordered a new trial.
- The Court held the emergency call was a private communication; statutory authorization to record emergency calls did not authorize substantive evidentiary use at trial, so admission of the tape was error.
- The Court held the self-defense instructions were prejudicially erroneous because they restricted the jury’s consideration of relevant circumstances known to Wanrow substantially before the shooting and did not properly frame reasonableness from her situation.

## Legal Principles

- Washington’s Privacy Act generally bars recording and use of private communications without consent; statutory permission to record emergency communications is limited and does not create a broad exception for use as trial evidence.
- Self-defense must be evaluated in light of all facts and circumstances known to the defendant, including information known substantially before the incident.
- The objective reasonableness component of self-defense is assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation, including relevant physical characteristics and limitations (such as size and injury) and the defendant’s perceptions shaped by prior knowledge of the assailant.
- Jury instructions that confine self-defense to the immediate moments before the use of force, or that effectively apply a male-centered model of reasonableness, can deny a defendant a fair trial.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the state improperly used a recorded emergency call as evidence in violation of statutory privacy limits and because the self-defense instructions prevented the jury from evaluating Wanrow’s actions based on the full set of circumstances known to her and the reasonableness of her fear given her physical condition and the threat she perceived.


State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977)