State of Washington v. Anita Virginia Whisler, 33108-3

Background

On May 16, 2014, Anita Whisler was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police; after the driver was arrested, Whisler allegedly attempted to wipe blood on an officer and refused to identify herself.
The State charged Whisler with third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
At trial the court gave WPIC 4.01 as the reasonable doubt instruction; Whisler did not object to the instruction at trial.
The jury convicted Whisler of third-degree assault and acquitted her of obstruction.
On appeal Whisler challenged two WPIC 4.01 phrases: (1) defining reasonable doubt as "one for which a reason exists," and (2) describing proof as an "abiding belief in the truth of the charge."
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the instruction consistent with Washington precedent and not a manifest constitutional error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WPIC 4.01's phrase "a doubt for which a reason exists" unconstitutionally requires jurors to articulate a reason for doubt	WPIC 4.01 forces jurors to state a reason, raising the State's burden above reasonable doubt	WPIC 4.01 properly requires reasonable (not imaginary) doubt; longstanding precedent validates wording	Court held phrase permissible when read in context; it does not require jurors to state a reason and has been repeatedly upheld
Whether WPIC 4.01's wording "abiding belief in the truth of the charge" improperly directs jurors to search for "truth" rather than assess the State's burden	The wording focuses jurors on finding "truth," improperly shifting role to "solve the case" and misstating burden of proof	The phrase, read with the instruction as a whole, appropriately tells jurors to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; precedent allows the optional phrasing	Court held the phrase does not direct jurors to "solve the case" or reduce the State's burden; instruction is proper
Whether failure to object at trial waives appellate review of the instruction	Whisler argued error so severe it qualifies as manifest constitutional error and may be raised on appeal	State argued longstanding WPIC means no constitutional error and Whisler waived review by not objecting	Court applied manifest-error standard and found no constitutional error; appellate review denied
Whether recent cases (Emery, Berube, Kalebaugh) require overruling WPIC 4.01	Whisler urged reconsideration based on statements limiting the jury to assessing burden rather than "finding truth"	State urged that those cases do not displace Pirtle and other controlling precedent upholding WPIC 4.01	Court held Pirtle and subsequent authority control; WPIC 4.01 remains the correct instruction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (1996) (upholding WPIC 4.01 and finding optional concluding sentence unnecessary but not erroneous)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (prosecutorial argument that asks jury to "solve the case" is misconduct; jury's role is to decide burden)
State v. Bennet(t), 161 Wn.2d 303 (2007) (approving WPIC 4.01 and directing trial courts to use it)
State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578 (2015) (reaffirming WPIC 4.01 as correct instruction)
State v. Mabry, 51 Wn. App. 24 (1988) (upholding language similar to WPIC 4.01; instructive in reading instruction as whole)
State v. Federov, 181 Wn. App. 187 (2014) (holding "belief in the truth" phrase correctly informs jury to assess whether State proved offenses beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Tanzymore, 54 Wn.2d 290 (1959) (earlier approval of modified reasonable doubt instructions)
State v. Walker, 19 Wn. App. 881 (1978) (earlier approval of modified reasonable doubt instructions)
State v. Thompson, 13 Wn. App. 1 (1975) (explaining "a doubt for which a reason exists" requires reasoned doubt, not imaginary doubt)