State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. Leroy Russell, App-cross Resp, 73923-9

On May 8, 2015, Leroy Russell drove by a group in Everett with his pit bull; after an initial encounter he returned, allegedly threatened to "shed our blood" and later threatened to shoot or kill people and two arresting officers.
Officers detained and arrested Russell; a half-full can of Four Loko was found in his truck and officers described him as noticeably intoxicated.
The State charged felony harassment (threats to Hammond) and two counts of attempted felony harassment (threats to Officers Olsen and Everett).
At a CrR 3.5 hearing, the trial court found Russell "very intoxicated" but ruled his statements to officers voluntary and admissible.
Defense advised it would pursue general denial, not a voluntary intoxication defense; the trial court allowed cross-examination on witnesses' perceptions of intoxication but barred arguing intoxication as mitigation absent requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction.
Jury acquitted on one officer count, convicted Russell of attempted felony harassment involving Officer Olsen and gross misdemeanor harassment (lesser) regarding Hammond; Russell appealed claiming ineffective assistance for failure to request a voluntary intoxication instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell was entitled to a voluntary-intoxication jury instruction	Russell: counsel was ineffective for not requesting the instruction; his intoxication impaired his ability to form required intent	State: volunt. intox. instruction requires substantial evidence intoxication affected mens rea; evidence of drinking alone insufficient	Court: No. Although intoxication was shown, Russell failed to present substantial evidence it prevented formation of required intent, so he was not entitled to the instruction
Whether failure to request the instruction amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel	Russell: omission prejudiced outcome; reasonable probability of different result if instruction given	State: counsel made strategic choice to avoid highlighting intoxication (which could suggest increased aggression); alternative strategy attacked witness credibility and succeeded partially	Held: Court found counsel's performance reasonable trial strategy and no prejudice; ineffective assistance claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-part ineffective assistance test)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (counsel deficiency and prejudice framework in Washington)
State v. Townsend, 142 Wn.2d 838 (standards for failure-to-instruct claims)
State v. Gabrvschak, 83 Wn. App. 249 (voluntary intoxication instruction requires substantial evidence intoxication affected mens rea)
State v. Galleqos, 65 Wn. App. 230 (same rule on intoxication and mens rea)
State v. Maxfield, 125 Wn.2d 378 (definition of substantial evidence)