State of Washington v. Benjamin Gordon Swofford, Jr., 34745-1

Late-night December 6, 2015: Swofford drove a minivan at high speed on gravel and city streets in foggy weather; an officer began pursuit with lights and siren.
Swofford repeatedly braked when the officer neared, then accelerated and used oncoming lanes, forcing other drivers to pull over.
Police deployed spike strips; Swofford ran them, puncturing tires, continued at ~60 mph, and was ultimately stopped when an officer struck his van.
Swofford told officers he had "f---ed up," and said earlier he was hurrying because his stepdaughter had reportedly overdosed; defense sought to present necessity evidence to that effect.
Jury convicted him of attempting to elude with an endangerment enhancement; trial court refused to admit necessity evidence and declined a common-law necessity instruction.
On appeal Swofford challenged denial of necessity, alleged ineffective assistance for not requesting a willfulness instruction, and contested sufficiency of evidence for the conviction and enhancement; court affirmed but remanded to clarify community custody was not imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Swofford)	Held
Admissibility of necessity evidence / availability of common-law necessity	Necessity evidence was irrelevant and properly excluded; statutory affirmative defense governs.	Swofford sought to show he fled to render emergency aid to an overdosing stepdaughter, justifying necessity.	Evidence was irrelevant to statutory affirmative defense and did not satisfy common-law necessity (reasonable legal alternative existed); exclusion affirmed.
Instruction defining "willfully" / ineffective assistance	No error: counsel reasonably omitted the definitional instruction as trial tactic; omission not prejudicial.	Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction defining "willfully."	No deficient performance or prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim denied.
Sufficiency of evidence for attempting to elude	Evidence (evasive maneuvers, braking-accelerating, speeding, admission) supported willfulness/knowledge and guilt.	Insufficient direct proof he saw/heard officer; thus no willful failure to stop.	Circumstantial evidence allowed inference of knowledge/willfulness; conviction supported.
Sufficiency for endangerment enhancement	Driving endangered other motorists (illegal pass, forcing cars to pull over, high speeds, bridge spike area).	No proof any person was threatened with physical harm.	Jury could reasonably find multiple drivers were endangered; enhancement supported.

State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (discretion in evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Diana, 24 Wn. App. 908 (recognition and limits of common-law necessity defense)
State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614 (definition of "reckless" in traffic statutes)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Flora, 160 Wn. App. 549 (willfulness definition in eluding context)