State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant v. Mikala Mcculley, Appellant/cr-respondent, 74041-5

Background

McCulley was charged with second-degree malicious mischief and two counts of reckless endangerment after an object shattered the rear window of a rental car containing the victim’s two children. The children were not physically injured.
The car sustained a shattered rear window, a dented trunk, and interior scratches; Cascade Collision Center’s repair estimate of $931.16 was admitted into evidence (no sales tax included). Higher repair estimates were testified to but not admitted as exhibits.
The jury was instructed that “physical damage” includes diminution in value and that “damages” include the reasonable cost of repairs and any sales tax imposed. McCulleyobjected that this instruction impermissibly commented on the evidence and relieved the State of proving an element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury convicted on all counts. On appeal McCulley challenged (1) the damages instruction as a judicial comment violating her right to a jury trial and due process, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence for reckless endangerment.
The Court of Appeals held the damages instruction accurately stated statutory law (including the statutory definition of physical damage and that repair costs/sales tax may be included) and therefore was not an improper comment on the evidence; any error would be harmless because admitted repair estimate exceeded the $750 threshold.
The court also held the evidence was sufficient for reckless endangerment: McCulley allegedly threw an object after being told children were in the car, creating a substantial risk of serious injury and acting with gross deviation from reasonable conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction defining damages impermissibly commented on evidence and violated right to jury trial/due process	Instruction relieved State of proving element beyond reasonable doubt by telling jury repair costs/sales tax are "damages"	Instruction accurately states statutory law (physical damage includes diminution in value and repair costs); neutral legal statement	Instruction was a correct statement of law and not an improper comment; if error, it was harmless because admitted estimate exceeded statutory threshold
Whether evidence was sufficient for reckless endangerment convictions	McCulley: conduct not reckless; did not create substantial risk of required harm	State: McCulley picked up/threw an object after being told children were in the car; window shattered; risk to children evident	Sufficient evidence: jury could infer she knowingly disregarded a considerable risk and grossly deviated from reasonable conduct

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brush, 183 Wn.2d 550 (discusses when a jury instruction is an improper comment on the evidence)
State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561 (instruction that accurately states law is not an improper comment)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (defendant entitled to jury determination of elements beyond reasonable doubt)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement for criminal convictions)
State v. Caldwell, 94 Wn.2d 614 (instructional language that relieves prosecution of burden violates due process)
State v. Ratliff, 46 Wn. App. 325 (treatment of diminution in value/repair-cost measures for damage)
State v. Gilbert, 79 Wn. App. 383 (sales tax may be included as repair cost in damages calculation)
State v. Lui, 179 Wn.2d 457 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897 (reckless endangerment requires knowledge of and disregard of a considerable risk; gross deviation standard)