Background
The State alleged that Gregory William Tuufuli participated in an August 2024 assault on Troy Harrison and delivered a kick to Harrison’s head that knocked him unconscious. Harrison never regained consciousness and died several weeks later. Because the initial autopsy was inconclusive and a neuropathology consultation remained pending, a juvenile court declined to find probable cause for murder but found probable cause for second-degree assault.
The State charged Tuufuli with second-degree assault, and he pleaded guilty at arraignment despite the State’s request for additional time. After a neuropathologist examined Harrison’s brain tissue, the medical examiner concluded that the assault caused a fatal cerebral hemorrhage and classified the death as a homicide. The State then charged Tuufuli as an adult with second-degree felony murder predicated on the assault. The trial court dismissed that charge on double-jeopardy grounds, finding that the State had not exercised due diligence, and the State appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the felony-murder prosecution fell within the narrow exception permitting a later, more serious charge when an essential fact was not discoverable through due diligence before jeopardy attached on the lesser charge. Although convictions for both assault and felony murder predicated on that assault ordinarily violate double jeopardy, the State did not yet possess medical evidence establishing that the assault caused Harrison’s death when it filed the assault charge.
The court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that the State already knew the facts underlying the murder charge. It further held, on de novo review, that the State acted with due diligence: the medical examiner had advised that neuropathology testing was necessary, the examination occurred shortly after Tuufuli’s plea, and the State filed the murder charge within days of learning the results. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings without deciding the merits of the murder charge.
Key Takeaways
- A successive prosecution for a greater offense may survive double-jeopardy scrutiny when an essential fact supporting that offense was not discoverable earlier despite the State’s due diligence.
- Knowledge that an assault preceded a victim’s death did not itself establish the medically necessary causal connection for a felony-murder charge.
- Due diligence is context-specific, and the State’s reliance on a pending neuropathology examination was reasonable under the undisputed timeline.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies how Washington courts should apply the due-diligence exception when prosecutors obtain essential medical-causation evidence only after a defendant has been convicted of a lesser offense. A trial court must distinguish suspicion that conduct caused a death from later-developed expert evidence establishing medical causation.
The ruling also confirms that appellate courts review underlying factual findings for substantial evidence but review de novo whether established facts satisfy the double-jeopardy exception.