State Of Washington, V. Christopher James Dreyer, 81326-9

Owners John Block and Jess Kenoyer discovered Dreyer inside their vacant Bellingham home after a split back-door jamb; utilities and appliances were being used and the kitchen showed recent cooking.
Dreyer told the owner he was "hired to fix up the place" by a person named Sorenson; neither owner had given permission to anyone.
Items indicating habitation and multiple occupants were found (toothbrushes, bedding in bedroom and garage, food and bottles); Dreyer had a pry bar and new doorknobs (in packaging) in a backpack; a fingerprint on an empty bottle matched Dreyer.
Witnesses saw another unidentified man at or near the property; one witness observed that man follow Dreyer into nearby woods after Dreyer fled when confronted.
Dreyer denied being inside and claimed trespass or belief he had permission; he was charged with residential burglary, the trial court gave accomplice-liability instructions, the jury convicted, and Dreyer appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (finding sufficient evidence to support accomplice instruction) and remanded for resentencing under State v. Blake (which the State conceded was required).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported giving an accomplice-liability instruction	Evidence showed Dreyer aided/agreed to aid another: forcible entry, use of utilities, pry bar, doorknobs in backpack, signs of multiple occupants, flight and false claim of permission	No evidence of a nexus or agreement with any other person; at most presence/trespass	Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit jury to find Dreyer aided or agreed to aid another in residential burglary
Whether Instruction No. 8 relieved the State of proving the knowledge element required for accomplice liability	Instruction must be read with Instruction No. 7 (which defined accomplice and the knowledge element); instructions as a whole preserved the State's burden	Phrase "participated in the crime" in Instruction No. 8 eliminated requirement to prove actual knowledge that actions would promote the crime	Affirmed — instructions read together adequately informed jury; no reversal for instruction error
Whether resentencing was required under State v. Blake	State conceded Blake requires resentencing	(No contest; relief sought)	Remand for resentencing under Blake (conceded by State)

State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631 (1993) (error to give instruction not supported by the evidence)
State v. Berube, 150 Wn.2d 498 (2003) (standard for sufficiency to support an instruction; review in light most favorable to requester)
State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (2000) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to party requesting instruction)
State v. Allen, 182 Wn.2d 364 (2015) (accomplice liability requires actual knowledge that principal was committing the charged crime and that defendant was furthering it)
State v. Douglas, 128 Wn. App. 555 (2005) (jury instructions are sufficient when read as a whole and not misleading)
State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) (holding requiring resentencing where statute previously used as basis for offender-score enhancements was invalid)