State Of Washington v. Bernabe John Love, 74409-7

Bernabe John Love was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (2nd degree), driving under the influence, and hit-and-run; he pled not guilty and proceeded to jury trial.
The trial court gave the WPIC 4.01 reasonable-doubt instruction, which uses the phrase "abiding belief" as the culmination of the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense counsel asked the court to supplement WPIC 4.01 with a dictionary definition of "abiding" ("continuing without change; enduring; lasting"); the court refused but allowed defense counsel to argue the dictionary meaning in closing.
Defense counsel explained "abiding belief" to jurors in closing, emphasizing continued, enduring confidence in the verdict.
The jury convicted Love on all counts; Love appealed, arguing the court violated due process by refusing to instruct the jury with the dictionary definition of "abiding."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to supplement WPIC 4.01 with a dictionary definition of "abiding."	The State: WPIC 4.01 is the approved, adequate instruction; courts should not alter it.	Love: A dictionary definition of "abiding" was needed to make "reasonable doubt" understandable; refusal violated due process.	Court affirmed: No error. WPIC 4.01 is sufficient; allowing the defense to argue the meaning in closing cured any issue.

State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303 (Supreme Court approved WPIC 4.01 as an adequate definition of reasonable doubt)
State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463 (standard of review for jury instruction challenges: de novo)
State v. Osman, 192 Wn. App. 355 (addressed limits on "abiding belief" argument; court allowed longer defense argument here)
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851 (distinguished as inapplicable because WPIC 4.01 is Supreme Court-approved)