Spokane man's murder convictions reversed

A federal appeals court yesterday overturned the convictions of a Spokane man in the 1992 stabbing deaths of two former Burger King co-workers, saying he had ineffective legal assistance.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called for Blake Pirtle to be released from custody unless the state begins new trial proceedings.

Pirtle had been sentenced to death, but that sentence was overturned earlier by a federal judge.

"We're obviously displeased with the court's decision," said Paul Weisser, an assistant state attorney general.

He said the state had not decided how it would proceed. It has 90 days to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court or 14 days to request that the entire San Francisco-based 9th Circuit review the case.

Pirtle's Seattle lawyer, Todd Maybrown, said, "We look forward to returning to court so Mr. Pirtle will receive a fair trial. It's very clear that there was abundant evidence ... so that he wouldn't be convicted of aggravated first-degree murder."

The appeals panel said Pirtle's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when his defense failed to ensure that the trial-court jury consider his mental capacity when deciding guilt.

Pirtle was convicted of aggravated first-degree murder and sentenced to death in the May 17, 1992, robbery of a Spokane Valley Burger King where he formerly worked. Evidence showed he beat employees Tom Folsom and Dawnya Calbreath before cutting their throats. Evidence also showed he changed clothes and sanitized portions of the crime scene afterward, gathering some items in a garbage sack, which was hidden in a neighbor's compost pile.

But Pirtle contended his mind was warped by drugs during the attack.

During his trial, he testified that he had had a long history of drug use and that, before the slayings, he had injected cocaine and methamphetamine, which caused him to become paranoid and hallucinate.

He said he was "startin' to come down really hard" when he decided to rob the fast-food restaurant. He said he went there to get money for drugs but did not go with the intent to kill.

Pirtle's lawyers requested an intoxication instruction, which states that "evidence of intoxication by alcohol or drugs may be considered in determining whether the defendant acted with intent or premeditated intent to kill."

They did not, however, request a diminished-capacity instruction to the jury, "although one was included in the same book of pattern instructions" as the intoxication instruction.

"We hold that, in light of the evidence presented in the guilt phase of the trial, defense counsel's failure to request a diminished-capacity instruction was constitutionally deficient and that it undermines our confidence in the jury's verdict," Judge Richard Paez wrote for the panel.

Judge Richard Tallman dissented, saying Pirtle's claim of diminished capacity was based on his voluntary use of illicit drugs and that the jury was instructed to consider only the issue of whether he was able to form premeditated intent to kill.

"Under Washington law, the instruction Pirtle's counsel requested provided sufficient guidance to the jury in its deliberations," Tallman said.

In June 2001, U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush overturned Pirtle's death sentence, ruling that an incriminating statement Pirtle made to police should not have been allowed as evidence in the sentencing portion of his 1993 trial.

When asked if he knew why he was being arrested, Pirtle replied: "Of course I do. You may as well shoot me now."