State Of Washington v. Dale Smith, 76742-9

On Dec. 31, 2015, Dale Smith was extremely intoxicated at a party, made suicidal statements about retrieving a gun, and medics called police.
Deputies Schlecht and Andersen and Officer Scrivner responded; Smith initially agreed to go to the hospital but later resisted after being strapped to a gurney.
While being escorted outside to urinate, Smith shoved Deputy Schlecht in the midsection, said “let me see that gun,” and grabbed at Schlecht’s firearm and duty belt; officers then restrained and handcuffed him.
Smith was charged and convicted of third-degree assault under RCW 9A.36.031(a) (intent to resist lawful process) and (g) (assault of a law-enforcement officer).
On appeal Smith argued (1) insufficient evidence of the specific intent required for assault, (2) jury instructions relieved the State of proving intent, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to present stronger voluntary-intoxication evidence.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for specific intent to assault	Extreme intoxication prevented formation of requisite intent	Evidence showed volitional, intentional conduct (words, negotiation, lunge, grabbing firearm) supporting an intent inference	Affirmed — a rational jury could infer intent from conduct
Jury instructions on intent	Multiple instructions confused jury and omitted intent element for alternative (2b)	Instructions read together clearly defined assault as intentional and explained intent and intoxication	Affirmed — instructions, taken as a whole, did not relieve State of burden
Voluntary intoxication defense / need for expert testimony	Counsel should have elicited expert evidence that Smith was too intoxicated to form intent	Trial elicited substantial intoxication evidence from State witnesses, defense witness, and defendant; expert testimony not required	Affirmed — counsel’s strategy was reasonable; no deficient performance shown
Ineffective assistance for failure to call additional witnesses	Failure to call an expert or other witnesses prejudiced defense	Decision to forego expert was legitimate trial strategy and record shows adequate preparation	Affirmed — strong presumption of effective assistance; no prejudice shown

State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d 707 (1995) (assault requires specific intent to harm or create apprehension)
State v. Coates, 107 Wn.2d 882 (1987) (voluntary intoxication not a defense, but may be considered on mental state element)
State v. Gabryschak, 83 Wn. App. 249 (1996) (voluntary intoxication instruction requires substantial evidence of drinking and its effect; expert testimony not required)
State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303 (2007) (jury instructions reviewed de novo in context of the whole)
State v. Nichols, 161 Wn.2d 1 (2007) (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)