Sources tell us that the King County prosecutor's office will not seek the death penalty against Daniel Hicks, who is accused of fatally shooting his girlfriend, Jennifer Morgan, and 13-week-old daughter, Emma Hicks, in their Beacon Hill home three days before Christmas in 2009.

According to prosecutors, Hicks and Morgan's relationship had become "rocky and abusive" and she had planned to ask Hicks to move out of their home, which they shared with Morgan's mother.

Hicks allegedly fatally shot Morgan and their 13-week-old daughter in a basement room of the shared home, reloading at least once during the incident. Prosecutors say Morgan was shot 12 times, while their infant daughter was shot at least seven times.

Morgan's mother found their bodies the next day.

A prosecutor's office spokesman has not yet responded to several requests for comment.

UPDATE @ 930am: Here's the official statement from the prosecutor's office.

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced today that he will not request the death penalty in the case of State v. Daniel T. Hicks, who is charged with two counts of Aggravated Murder First Degree for allegedly shooting to death his girlfriend Jennifer Morgan and their 13-week-old daughter Emma on December 21, 2009 in Seattle.

Statement of King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg regarding the decision to not seek the death penalty in State v. Hicks

When the crime of Aggravated Murder in the First Degree is charged, Washington State's capital punishment statute requires the Prosecuting Attorney to make a threshold decision about whether or not the option of the death penalty should be presented to a future jury. In making this decision, the Prosecuting Attorney must consider any and all relevant mitigating factors that would necessitate not seeking the death penalty.

The question that is eventually asked of any capital case jury, which must first be answered by the Prosecuting Attorney, is set forth as follows: "Having in mind the crime of which the defendant has been found guilty, are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?" RCW 10.95.060(4).

The duty of the Prosecuting Attorney is to ask whether there are any reasons to merit leniency, and, if such reasons exist, to remove the possibility of the death penalty from the potential outcomes of an aggravated murder case. The Prosecutor should conduct this analysis, appreciating that the jury must use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in deciding whether there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances.

After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case, including an extensive review of the background of the defendant, I have decided that this case is not appropriate for the death penalty. The only other punishment for Aggravated Murder is life in prison without the possibility of release. We will pursue a sentence of life in prison in this case.