State Of Washington v. Brian Christopher Cozad, 48526-5

Appellant Brian C. Cozad was charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender for the period April 18–May 28, 2014; jury trial resulted in conviction and a 25‑month sentence.
Cozad had prior convictions for failing to register and was supervised by community corrections; he changed his registration on April 18, 2014 from a fixed address to "homeless/transient."
Detective Folsom (sex offender registration unit) testified transients must check in in person weekly and that calling in is not an adequate substitute; Cozad missed several required in‑person check‑ins.
Cozad testified he continued sleeping at his girlfriend’s apartment, contributed to rent, worked long hours (5:00 AM–7:30 PM daily) and claimed calling in was necessary because carrying a phone at work would lead to termination.
The trial court gave instructions defining "fixed residence" and the registration/change‑of‑address requirements; it refused Cozad’s proposed WPIC necessity instruction for lack of evidentiary support.
On appeal Cozad argued the fixed‑residence instructions were unsupported (because he lacked permission to stay) and that the necessity instruction should have been given; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions on fixed residence/registration requirements were supported by evidence	State: testimony showed Cozad habitually used girlfriend’s apartment and failed to provide accurate address or timely change notice, supporting instructions	Cozad: apartment was not a lawful fixed residence because manager asked him to leave, so instructions were not applicable	Court: Evidence (sleeping there, contributing to rent, tenant’s permission) supported treating it as a fixed residence; instructions proper
Whether trial court erred by refusing necessity defense instruction	State: no substantial evidence Cozad reasonably believed violation was necessary or that greater harm would result from compliance	Cozad: missing in‑person check‑ins were necessary to avoid job loss and homelessness; thus necessity instruction was warranted	Court: Record lacked proof compliance would have caused job loss/homelessness; Cozad created circumstances by registering transient despite sleeping at apartment; necessity instruction not supported

State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767 (discretionary review of jury instruction sufficiency)
State v. Green, 182 Wn. App. 133 (standard for reviewing instruction decisions)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176 (entitlement to instruction requires supporting evidence)
City of Bremerton v. Widell, 146 Wn.2d 561 (tenant invitation can negate landlord objection to presence)
State v. Jeffrey, 77 Wn. App. 222 (elements for necessity defense)
State v. Gallegos, 73 Wn. App. 644 (necessity defense element discussion)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance)