Taylor marean trial

Taylor Marean appeals the standard range sentence imposed for his conviction for vehicular homicide. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for an exceptional sentence below the standard range because it incorrectly assumed it did not have legal authority to impose such a sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. During the evening of February 13, , Brooke Reese and Jacoby Bryant, both teenagers, went to a party at a friend's house.

Taylor Marean and Ryan Perizzo showed up at the party around midnight. All four were drinking alcohol. Reese and Ms. Bryant left the party about a. Reese's car. Marean and Mr. Perizzo followed them in a car driven by Mr. According to Ms. Reese, Mr. Marean would speed up and pass her, slow down to let her catch up, and then pass her again at a high rate of speed.

At one point, he rolled down his window and said, "let's race. Marean took off at a high rate of speed, and Ms. Reese accelerated in an attempt to catch up with him. As she approached an intersection for a left-hand turn, she lost control of her car, and Mr.

Marean's car struck her car along the driver's side, driving her car sideways across a curb and into a tree. Bryant was killed instantly as a result of the collision. The cause of death was severance of her brain stem and blunt force trauma. Marean's blood alcohol level at the time of the collision was 0.

The State charged Mr. Marean with vehicular homicide. Marean entered a guilty plea as charged in exchange for the prosecutor's agreement to recommend a sentence within the standard range of 31 to 41 months. At sentencing, Mr. Marean sought an exceptional sentence downward of 24 months based on his allegation that Ms. Bryant was a "willing participant" in the offense under RCW 9. He asked the court to consider two supporting exhibits— a toxicology report indicating that Ms.

Bryant's blood alcohol level was 0. The court accepted highlighted portions of the supplemental police report, but rejected the toxicology report, finding it irrelevant to the sentencing issues.

Based on the police report, defense counsel then argued:. The court denied Mr. Marean's request and imposed a mid-range standard range sentence of 36 months, explaining, "I do not believe we have the legal basis for a willing participant criteria that the Court can use to allow a downward. Marean appeals the sentence. Marean contends the trial court committed reversible error by categorically refusing to consider the "willing participant" mitigating factor under RCW 9. Hinds, 85 Wash.

Marean claims that as a result of the court's categorical rejection of the "willing participant" mitigating factor, the court refused to consider a toxicology report revealing Ms. Bryant's blood a1cohollevel of 0. Marean to Mr. Marean, this blood alcohol level explained why "[Ms.

Bryant's] decision-making capacity might be impaired to the point where, as the record suggests, all four persons involved were there willingly and were participating in the race. Marean further contends that it is fair to infer that Ms. Bryant was aware the drivers were intoxicated, that Ms. Reese was not holding her hostage, and that she agreed to the race because she was directly across from Mr. Marean when he rolled down his window and invited Ms. Bryant to race. Contrary to Mr.

Marean's assertion, the record reveals that the court was aware of its discretion to impose a sentence below the standard range and did not misunderstand the law. Nothing in the court's oral decision indicates that it rejected the exceptional sentence based on a belief that a passenger, by definition, could not be a "willing participant" under RCW 9. A plain reading of the oral decision demonstrates that the court considered the proposed mitigating factor and found it legally and factually insufficient to warrant an exceptional sentence downward.

During the guilty plea hearing, the court heard evidence that 1 witnesses saw the cars speeding, 2 Ms. Reese admitted to drinking four shots of vodka prior to the collision, 3 all four teenagers were drinking, 4 Ms. Reese was speeding and lost control of the car, and 5 Ms. Reese accepted Mr. Marean's challenge to race.

Marean disagreed that these facts supported an inference that Ms. Bryant accepted the challenge to race or that she was "to a significant degree" a willing participant in the incident. As the court explained, "[t]he passenger in the vehicle, the young girl who is dead, that's who we're talking about. She wasn't driving. She didn't participate in anything other than being in the vehicle.

This is an appropriate exercise of the sentencing discretion. We also reject Mr. Marean's argument that the court erred in refusing to consider the toxicology report. Sentencing courts have wide discretion over the sources and types of information they consider in determining the length of a sentence within the standard range. Herzog, Wn. Here, the court was well within its discretion in concluding that the toxicology report was of marginal relevance to mitigation.

The facts before the court indicated Ms. Bryant had been drinking. But even assuming Ms. Bryant's judgment was impaired to the extent indicated in the toxicology report, it does not necessarily follow that she agreed to the race or otherwise significantly participated in the events that led to her death. Marean within its discretion to disregard the report. We affirm. This story has been shared 22, times. This story has been shared 19, times. This story has been shared 18, times.

View author archive Get author RSS feed. Name required. Email required. Comment required. More On: taylor swift.