Appeals Court Upholds Kittitas County Conviction in LSD Homicide Case

A Washington State Court of Appeals panel has upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of a fatal drug delivery in Kittitas County, rejecting claims that his defense attorney’s side job as a part-time court commissioner created an unconstitutional conflict of interest.

In an unpublished opinion filed Thursday, Division III of the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Patrick West.

📄 402428 Unpublished (169KB ∙ PDF file)

West was found guilty by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance and controlled substance homicide.

The charges, filed in October 2021, stem from an incident in which the effects of LSD that West sold caused the purchaser to become delusional and jump out of a fourth-story window to his death.

The Conflict of Interest Claim

West appealed his conviction, arguing that his defense attorney, James Kirkham, had a “direct concurrent conflict of interest.”

In early February 2022, West retained Kirkham to represent him. However, in April 2023, Kittitas County Superior Court judges appointed Kirkham to serve as a court commissioner.

Kirkham typically worked in this judicial role for one eight-hour day per week.

West argued on appeal that his attorney’s representation was directly adverse to Kirkham’s duties to Kittitas County and the State of Washington.

The optics of Kirkham’s dual roles were noted during West’s trial, which commenced in Kittitas County Superior Court on January 3, 2024, before the Honorable L. Candace Hooper.

Two days into the trial, the State—represented by the Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office—raised concerns about Kirkham’s commissioner status.

Prosecutors pointed out that Kirkham’s court commissioner nameplate was sitting on the court clerk’s desk where the jury might see it, and noted he had been using a restricted doorway that led to his office and the judge’s area. Judge Hooper ordered the nameplate removed from the jurors’ view.

The Court’s Ruling

Writing the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Robert Lawrence-Berrey dismissed West’s arguments, clarifying the fundamental nature of a judicial officer’s duties.

“A court commissioner, similar to a judge, does not represent a client,” wrote Judge Lawrence-Berrey.

The court highlighted that this non advocate role is exactly what permits commissioners and judges to rule impartially in cases where a county or state is a party.

The panel flatly rejected West’s premise, stating that the notion of a court commissioner having a conflict of interest simply due to their employment is “unsupported by any authority and would cast doubt on over a century of criminal convictions.”

The appellate court also pointed out a flaw in West’s argument regarding the appearance of fairness.

Addressing the trial prosecutor’s concerns over Kirkham’s nameplate, the court noted that any appearance of fairness issues related to Kirkham’s dual roles would actually be detrimental to the State, not to the defendant.

“If any juror knew that Kirkham was a part-time court commissioner, this knowledge would only enhance the credibility of Kirkham’s arguments on behalf of West,” the court reasoned. “This likely explains why the State was the party to raise this ‘fairness’ concern.”