State Of Washington v. Graylin Renauld January, 75170-1

In June 2015, during a road‑rage incident, Saunders testified that Graylin January (passenger in a vehicle driven by Felicia January) turned toward Saunders, asked “What did you say?,” produced a gun, cocked it, and pointed it at Saunders through the windshield. Saunders called 911 and later identified January to police.
Felicia testified the gun was hers, she had a concealed weapons permit, and that the gun was in the Escalade’s center console when officers arrived; she consented to retrieval. Officer testimony showed no round in the chamber when retrieved.
A jury convicted January of felony harassment (threat to kill) and unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree. January appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of a communicated intent to kill, a Petrich unanimity error (failure to instruct jury to agree on a single act), and ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting such an instruction.
The Court reviewed sufficiency under the standard that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State and inferences of intent may be drawn from conduct that plainly indicates intent.
The Court also analyzed whether actual possession (pointing the gun) and constructive possession (sitting in car with gun in console) were separate acts requiring a unanimity instruction, or part of a single continuing course of conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for felony harassment (threat to kill)	State: January’s words and conduct (question + pointing/cocking gun) communicated intent to kill.	January: Pointing a gun alone is equivocal and not sufficient to prove a death threat.	Affirmed — reasonable juror could find he communicated intent to kill given context and conduct.
Unanimity instruction (Petrich) for possession count	State: Both actual and constructive possession arose from a single continuous course of conduct; no unanimity instruction required.	January: Actual and constructive possession occurred at different times/places under different theories, so jury needed to unanimously agree on which act.	Affirmed — possession acts were minutes apart, same location/participants/ultimate purpose; no Petrich instruction required.
Ineffective assistance for not requesting unanimity instruction	State: Counsel not ineffective because no unanimity instruction was required.	January: Failure to request instruction was deficient performance and prejudicial.	Affirmed — no deficient performance because instruction was not required.
Appellate costs given indigency finding	State: Entitled to costs unless indigency no longer exists.	January: Indigent; court should deny costs.	Remanded/held: trial court found indigent; State may move to show changed circumstances.

State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (discussing standard for sufficiency and intent inference)
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (unanimity instruction requirement when multiple acts charged)
State v. Handran, 113 Wn.2d 11 (continuous course of conduct test for unanimity)
State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1 (patently equivocal evidence and intent inferences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)