MOBILE
Crenshaw found guilty of first-degree murder
Justin W. Crenshaw is led from a courtroom at the Spokane County Courthouse Tuesday, July 27, 2010, after he was found guilty of two aggravated first degree murder charges.
Photo gallery ›July 27, 2010 7:39 p.m. - Updated: August 5, 4:01 p.m.
Justin Crenshaw arrived in Spokane from Las Vegas a recovering heroin addict, excited to reunite with his sister and start a new life.
Two murders and nearly 2 1/2 years later, the 22-year-old confessed killer learned his fate in a Spokane County courtroom: Life in prison, no parole.
That’s the only sentence available to Crenshaw after a jury convicted him Tuesday of two counts of aggravated first-degree murder, rejecting his claim that a rare alcohol disorder triggered the grisly stabbing deaths of Sarah A. Clark, 18, and Tanner E. Pehl, 20, on Feb. 28, 2008.
“The murders gave us a life sentence, and he deserves no less,” said Teesha Clark, Clark’s mother.
Crenshaw appeared unemotional and stared straight ahead, clenching his jaw slightly, while Superior Court Judge Tari Eitzen read the verdict. He will be sentenced Aug. 5.
The jury of five men and seven women spent about four hours deliberating after a two-week trial.
At issue was whether Crenshaw intended to kill Clark and Pehl.
His lawyer, Chris Bugbee, asked jurors to convict Crenshaw of first-degree manslaughter, claiming Crenshaw suffers from a rare disorder that causes bizarre behavior after drinking alcohol.
But Deputy Prosecutor Jack Driscoll offered a different explanation for the grisly crimes during his closing argument Monday.
“He lacks a conscience,” Driscoll said of Crenshaw. “The crime scene photos show you that.”
Clark was stabbed 26 times before her body was posed with a Samurai sword positioned at her nearly severed head. Pehl was stabbed more than a dozen times before a blanket was placed over his dead body and a broadsword was plunged through his abdomen four times before it lodged in his spine.
Investigators believe Crenshaw found the swords while ransacking the Pehl home after the murders.
Jurors ruled that Crenshaw, who has a previous assault conviction for stabbing a friend in the back as a juvenile, committed the murders with deliberate cruelty and that the slayings were part of a common plan or scheme.
The only punishments for aggravated first-degree murder in Washington is death or life in prison without parole; prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty.
Crenshaw’s mother and grandmother, who live in Las Vegas and attended the trial, declined comment after the verdict other than to say the case “is far from over.”
Pehl’s mother, Laurie Pehl, said she feels “so sorry” for Crenshaw’s family.
“But I’m more happy for my family - my family and Sarah’s family,” she said.
Clark’s father, Steve Clark, also praised the verdict.
“We feel like Sarah got justice,” he said.
“But,” he added, “we still have to live without her for the rest of our lives.”
Clark was a senior at Mead High School who worked at a grocery store and wanted to be a hairstylist. A black and white painted bench sits at the high school in memory of her and a zebra-striped coat she often wore. Pehl had graduated Mead and worked as a chef at the now-closed Brooklyn’s Woodfire Grill on North Newport Highway, where he met Crenshaw.
Crenshaw, who spent time in rehab for heroin addiction, had left Las Vegas about two weeks before the murders to visit his long-lost sister in Spokane, Nikki Vanvlymen, who he tracked down through MySpace. Crenshaw soon began dating Clark, who had been close friends with Vanvlymen since 8th grade, and decided to stay in Spokane.
Driscoll said in his closing argument that Crenshaw may have killed Clark because she wasn’t interested in having sex with him. Pehl went to the bedroom to investigate Clark’s screams and was overpowered by Crenshaw, Driscoll said.
But Bugbee said Crenshaw had no motive for the crime, and blamed the alcohol disorder. Bugbee called just two witnesses - a psychiatrist who said Crenshaw may suffer from the disorder, and a childhood friend who told jurors about Crenshaw acting violent after drinking alcohol as a teenager.
Crenshaw, Pehl and Clark were drinking at the home where Pehl lived with his mother and brother, 512 E. Elm Road, the night of the murders. One witness testified to hearing loud screams coming from the Pehl home about 3:40 a.m. A motorist called 911 after he saw the home on fire about 4:30 a.m.
A bloody fingerprint on a door connected Crenshaw to the crime. He told detectives he’d gotten too drunk and was driven to a friend’s apartment by Clark and Pehl just after midnight, and denied owning a black pair of Nikes he wore during the murders. Investigators found the shoes with Crenshaw’s bloody clothes in his aunt’s garage two months after the murders. With them was a belt with the words and symbols, “infamous,” “trust no one,” knives and broken hearts.
Family and friends of Clark and Pehl are expected to speak at Crenshaw’s sentencing next week. Bugbee said Crenshaw and his family likely will speak, “but obviously it won’t have any effect on his sentence.”
When asked if Crenshaw was remorseful, Bugbee said, “Of course he is.”
ummm…what is it?? The verdict that is…
I can’t believe there has not been a discussion about Bugbee protecting murderers, rapists and child molesters for money and then asking us, the tax payer, to elect him and pay his salary as our prosecutor. I understand that he says he has a well rounded perspective after serving on both sides, but come on. He didn’t go back to the prosecutors office or even to public service as a public defender when he could have. Instead he has chosen to take money for the last eight years to have the chance to represent some of the most notorious convicts this county has seen in a long time.
Ok…. so what’s missing here? Hello!!!! I can’t believe they posted the story, with the headline that a verdict was reached but didn’t post the verdict. That sounds like something I’d do - lol
I read on KHQ that we have to wait an hour to hear the verdict.
Once the jury reaches it’s verdict they have to give notice to all the parties to be present in court. The jury will then be brought in and the verdict will be read by the judge. then the jury is likely to be polled. only until all that is done, which depending on the availability of the parties could take a while, will they announce the verdict.
They are probably waiting for all concerned parties to get back to the courthouse before they announce what the verdict is.
Ok - that makes more sense. I guess there is a difference between “reaching a verdict” and actually “delivering a verdict”.
Guilty! yes! High Five!!! Been a long two years.
Remember the defense statements from Bugbee when the election rolls around… This is not what Spokane needs
Tonyrugel and kperry: You both hit it exactly on the head. I said on another thread that voters need to ask this question: Do we want a defense attorney to be the elected prosecutor?
I can’t believe that Bugbee could keep a straight face and tell the public that he is concerned about public safety. Unbelievable.
Our justice system allows everyone, not just the innocent, representation. Technically, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The fact that Bugbee worked as a defense attorney after working as a prosecutor doesnt mean that he is NOt concerned about public safety. Think about all the people he defended that were innocent. Plus, unlike our current prosecutor, Bugbee actually works, is in court, and actual tries cases…………..I think (though I will have to research further) that Bugbee is the only candidate, including Tucker, that actually has tried (including while Bugbee worked as a prosecutor) murder cases.
John Adams, one of our founding fathers, was the defense attorney for the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.
I too was a defense attorney after being a prosecutor. The difference: I knew that prosecution and public service was what I was called to do. As a result I chose to return to a prosecution role and then continue working for the good of our community in public service. Mr. Bugbee has had an opportunity to decide over the last eight years what his true calling is. The choice he makes everyday he goes to work is to take money to protect criminals. Look at the website for his criminal defense practice:
AGGRESSIVE & EXPERIENCED.
OUR FIRM SPECIALIZES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE:
*DRUG OFFENSES
*HOMICIDE
*SEXUAL CRIMES
*ROBBERY & BURGLARY
*ASSAULT
*DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
*DUI/DWI
*ALL FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS
This is cut and pasted from his website. Does he sound like a prosecutor you want representing you as a victim of a crime.
A prosecutor does not “represent you as a victim of a crime” - he represents “The State”. But I do have to agree with you - I am not sure how someone can change hats so easily. Jumping from defense to prosecution or vise versa has got to be an extremely difficult thing to do - such different mindsets are involved. Seems he may just be jumping the fence again to greener grass (translated - following the money).
Gota love defense attorneys. Ever notice how they blame some rare disorder, alcohol, drugs, or someone else for the crime. BUT not their client.
Lets be realistic: the prosecutor represents the people of the county. If you are the victim of a crime and live in this county you are represented by the elected county prosecutor. Most prosecutor’s offices have a victim/witness unit they work with or that work for them in their offices. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t begrudge Mr. Bugbee because he represents criminals. It is crucial that we have qualified and competent criminal defense attorneys to be certain that everyone has their rights protected and to prevent possible overreaching by prosecutors. But, it is not likely that the day after the election Mr. Bugbee will have a complete change of heart and will forget what he has been paid to do the last eight years: representing criminals. Having filled both roles I can tell you: you are either a prosecutor or a criminal lawyer and after this long as a criminal lawyer Chris Bugbee has decided he is not a prosecutor.
I hope and pray for the Clark’s and Pehl’s that now somehow they may find some peace in their lives. This has been an extremely trying time for the families of these innocent victims of this heinous crime. While their lives may never be made whole, a guilty verdict and the rest of this young scum bags life in prison may help to fill the void.
The defense initially argued away the death penalty which IMHO is the only true punishment this waste of flesh deserves, so life in prison is the next best punishment.
Looks like someone isn’t going to be able to drink alcohol for a long time. If he was found “not guilty” and set free, what do you think the chances are of him hitting the booze again? and with his condition?
What was Bugbee trying to prove? If you have a violent reaction to alcohol, it’s okay to kill two innocent people.
Thank you Jury, and may the Judge place the maximum sentence on you Crenshaw!
For crying out loud, don’t any of you lawyers posting here know anything about panel cases?
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/jul/09/murder-defendant-will-get-new-attorney/
Bugbee was obligated pursuant to contract to take this case, sure he could have tried to find a way out of it, but he showed some ethical backbone and didn’t. Looks to me like he played all the cards he had to aggressively represent the client consistent with the oath he took when he became a lawyer and what we should expect when someone is working for us( He was working for us you know). Justice was done and it appears both sides did a good job. It was our money paying both the prosecutor and Bugbee. Because it was a panel case we were paying Bugbee a lot less than any of us would if we walked into his office and asked him to defend us in a murder trial.
As my granddaughter would say, “Get Real”!
Brad Szottlinger
Mr. Szottlinger…
AMEN!
No death penalty? Our country is week. Should be excuting murders like this guy. No 5 years on death row either.
I certainly do understand the panel. I understand, also, that the oath he and I took does not require that we represent criminals. He chose to become certified to be on the panel so he would have the opportunity to take tax payer money to represent criminals. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a criminal lawyer who has devoted the last eight years of his life to protecting the criminally accused should be elected by us to sit in the prosecutor’s office. Again, the system needs strong competent criminal lawyers and we need good prosecutors. He has made a choice everyday for the last eight years to be a criminal lawyer not a prosecutor.
so I guess that you can say with confidence tonyrugel that every person that a defense attorney represents is criminally guilty - no one is ever innocent or falsely accused ? HHHHMMMMMM - you should check out the Felipe Vargas case - held in jail for 7 months after his step daughters accused him of sexually abusing them - his PD presumed his guilt as well - new private defense attorneys stepped in, he was released from jail after sitting there for 7 months after the kids admitted they made up the whole story and now grant county and the PD have a 3 million dollar jury award against them for violating Mr. Vargas’s civil rights……- example of why we want good defense attorneys out there representing “criminals” - as an attorney, I would think that you understand the legal system and the right to be represnted by counsel and the right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty -
tonyrugel:
Well counselor, I would take it that you have not nor would you ever seek panel certification because you choose not to be in a position where you might have to make a decision whether or not to defend those dregs of society. That’s fine with me, your choice.
I would ask though, whether you have any admiration whatsoever for those members of the bar who have chosen otherwise like, Mr. Malone for example, or is your distain for defense lawyers limited to Mr. Bugbee.
I do note that your candidate Mr. Stevens whose legal background thus far has been as a career prosecutor has some of those dastardly defense lawyers endorsing him are you okay with that.
You mention Mr. Bugbee’s eight years of criminal defense work “Protecting” criminals so obviously eight years in your mind is far too much. Do you have a requisite amount of criminal defense experience you would except from a candidate, say three days, six months, or even maybe a year?
I reviewed the oath you and all the candidates took in this state, and I’ll be darned if I can find the word protect.
I wonder if you happen to remember this section of the oath.
8. I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the
cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay unjustly the cause of any person.
It would seem to me that a prosecutor who has spent 8 years on the other side would know every trick.
I’m no fan of any of these (just haven’t studied up yet, but I know the incumbent is not on my list). It just seems disingenuous to have a lawyer complaining about what another lawyer does. Sheesh, you guys are the most sickly symbiotic life form we have.
Or, as LBJ said, any town that can’t afford one lawyer can certainly afford two.
“Sheesh, you guys are the most sickly symbiotic life form we have.”
I resemble that remark!
Brad
I have, in fact, noted my admiration for good, moral, criminal lawyers - Bugbee included. Again, the issue is whether we want a good, moral, criminal lawyer as a prosecutor. If the informed electorate decide that someone who has spent eight years protecting the criminally accused will be the best person to prosecute the same people he has been protecting then so be it.
Concernedreader: I believe we are in more agreement than you might imagine. I too, as a criminal lawyer, represented people who were wrongly accused, and I am sure Mr. Bugbee has as well. I hope that he wil continue to provide this invaluable service to all his clients not just today but well into the future.
I wouldn’t vote for Stevens to save my life. No, Tucker, is no better. Malone has no experience as a prosecutor and Reierson (please excuse the spelling if this is incorrect) appears out of the question. I guess my vote will remain my business.
Oh, two years would seem like plenty of time. eight years seems a bit excessive (unless it is truly what you should be doing).
tonyrugel:
I was going to let this ride, but I changed my mind.
I’m sure you are aware that a number of career prosecutors in the SCPA’s office are supporting Mr. Bugbee; there are also several who wanted to be career prosecutors but were laid off and are supporting him. They must not have any concern regarding his criminal defense background. I’m not sure why you as a career prosecutor if that is what you are would have a concern unless you know something others of us don’t. If you do know something please share it.
Let me throw out a hypothetical, is a lawyer that let’s say spent a short time as a PD, some time as a deputy prosecutor in a small Washington county running at one point for the top job, then going on to land a job with a state agency, and who at one point PROTECTED those scoundrels in the Washington State Senate qualified to make a balanced judgment about what best prepares a lawyer for the job of Spokane County Prosecutor or would career prosecutors who actually work or have worked in the office be more qualified to make that judgment?
Let me quote you here:
“I too was a defense attorney after being a prosecutor. The difference: I knew that prosecution and public service was what I was called to do. As a result I chose to return to a prosecution role and then continue working for the good of our community in public service. Mr. Bugbee has had an opportunity to decide over the last eight years what his true calling is. The choice he makes everyday he goes to work is to take money to protect criminals.”
Another hypothetical and for the sake of argument let’s say the lawyer I mentioned above continued in a prosecution and public service role, Mr. Bugbee wins the election, and after all the things that lawyer has publicly stated about Bugbee the lawyer is forced to work with him and his staff in service to the public. How would that lawyer handle that senario, and by the same token how do you feel Mr. Bugbee would handle it.
Brad Szottlinger
I am qualified to make a balanced judgment for myself the same as you are. I don’t pretend to know who others should vote: I only hope that people make an informed decision. If we as a community want a criminal lawyer as our prosecutor so be it.
Let’s bring this to an end respectfully. In the end the NEW prosecutor (I will be honest, most likely Bugbee at this point) will take office and will continue with many of the old practices and some new ones. Some will be convicted and some will not. some will be happy others will not. neither your life, nor mine, will likely be heavily impacted by what happens in the prosecutor’s office and we will continue to do our best to live happy productive lives with our family and friends close by. The purpose of this exchange was to encourage discourse and hopefully get people interested so they will think before they vote. You have certainly helped me do that. Thank you.
I also find it very interesting the Police Guild is backing Mr. Bugbee. The Guild has shown over the last decade that they are not interested in justice. Just wanting to use their leverage against the public to protect their own interests.Hopefully, Mr. Bugbee will not crawl into bed with these guys.Most law enforcement officers are GREAT! Mr. Tucker on the other hand has failed to prosecute the bad apples and lets the guild and big buisnesses with deep pockets pick who he charges or doesn’t. I am VERY disappointed in Mr. Tucker and his lack of knowledge and leadership in his current assignment as Prosecutor. I am sorry I ever voted for him! It turns my stomach seeing his campain signs.Mr.Stevens caught my attention when he was first terminated by Tucker. Seems he should have stepped up and said more about the current improprieties in the Prosecutors office.Tucker may have been impeached if possible! LOL I wish I new more about Mr. Malone and other possible candidates.I am looking to vote for anyone with courage enough to do the RIGHT thing ! Smart enough to see when they are making or have made a mistake and make it right.Will the right person for the job please step forward??
tonyrugel:
Agreed, and I completely understand.
In a very short period, few if any will remember what has been said here!
Brad
Brad and Tony…
You don’t get it! These Spokesman comment boards are the Spokane version of reality TV. Everybody plays a role, within that role you can make up whatever truth you want, and nobody has to worry about the truth. (I guess it’s a lot like American justice, too.)
As for nobody remembering what we write here later on…well, that’s the curse of celebrity!
Scoutster:
Since you are the producer of this extravaganza then I demand the part you offered George Clooney. If you won’t give me that part then I’ll take the one Brad Pitt turned down. I’ll need a double for all of the action scenes, but I’ll be able to take care of the intimate stuff. Who have you got in mind for the female lead?
Brad
hmmm…
Betty White?
Just my luck!
So sue me!
Two people were taken way before their time, and you folks are making it a Spokane judicial system debate. My heart goes out to their families!
Well, gee, crhys…
Did someone FORCE you to keep reading?