State Of Washington, V Daniel Rae Terry, 75240-5

Daniel Terry was observed interacting with Charlotte Allen near a Burger King; an eyewitness (Sylvester) reported suspected drug activity and identified Terry to police.
Officer Noel arrived, learned via dispatch that Allen was a protected person in a no-contact order naming Terry, and detained Terry after confirming his identity when Terry provided partial SSN.
Terry was charged and convicted of violating a no-contact order; he stipulated to an offender score of nine (including two out-of-state convictions) and received a 60-month sentence.
Terry moved to suppress evidence from the alleged unlawful seizure (being prevented from boarding a bus); the trial court denied suppression.
On appeal Terry challenged (1) the completeness of the jury "to-convict" instruction (use of "knowingly" vs. "willfully" and whether intent to contact was required), (2) admission of evidence from the seizure, (3) inclusion of two out-of-state convictions in his offender score, and (4) sought waiver of appellate costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Terry)	Held
Jury instruction sufficiency ("knowingly" vs. "willfully")	Instruction followed Washington pattern; "knowingly" equates to "willfully" for material elements when defined elsewhere	Instruction was incomplete and could allow conviction for accidental contact	Court: Instruction, read with definitions, adequately required willfulness; no reversible error
Admission of evidence from alleged unlawful seizure	Any evidence admitted was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; suppression not necessary to decide	Officer Noel unlawfully seized Terry by preventing bus boarding, so evidence should be suppressed	Court assumed seizure unlawful but found admitted evidence (identification/testimony) harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Inclusion of out-of-state convictions in offender score	Terry stipulated to existence and comparability of Oregon and Florida convictions, relieving State of proof	Out-of-state convictions not comparable to Washington felonies; should be excluded	Court: Stipulation waived challenge; convictions properly included in offender score
Waiver of appellate costs	State entitled to costs unless court directs otherwise	Terry asked court to deny appellate costs due to indigence	Court declined to decide now; noted remittal option at sentencing under manifest hardship statute

State v. Castillo, 150 Wn. App. 466 (defendant must be informed of elements as a whole)
State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303 (State bears burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Clowes, 104 Wn. App. 935 (instructional issue: "knowingly" vs. "willfully" and completeness of to-convict instruction)
State v. Day, 161 Wn.2d 889 (warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable)
State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620 (exclusionary rule and suppression remedies)
State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220 (stipulation to prior convictions waives State's proof burden)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (court discretion re: awarding appellate costs to prevailing State)