State Of Washington, V. Malik Tupac Lee, 81136-3

Malik Tupac Lee and victim Elijah Day were friends; Lee visited Day’s apartment while they smoked marijuana with others present.
Lee brought a loaded nine-millimeter Beretta into the apartment, pulled the slide and shook the gun while keeping a finger on the trigger; the gun discharged and struck Day in the head.
Witnesses saw Day fall bleeding; Lee and others left the scene without calling for help; Day later died at the hospital.
Police later arrested Lee in a stolen car and recovered the firearm; evidence showed Lee had previously fired the same gun at a store wall.
Forensic experts disagreed: Lee’s expert pointed to a missing spring that could affect slide operation and posited an accidental discharge possibility; the State’s expert testified Lee was 4–6 feet behind Day when the gun fired.
The jury acquitted Lee of second-degree murder but convicted him of first-degree manslaughter with a firearm; Lee appealed arguing insufficient evidence of recklessness.

Issue	State's Argument	Lee's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supported a conviction for first-degree manslaughter (recklessness)	Evidence showed Lee knowingly disregarded a substantial risk: familiar with guns, brought a loaded firearm while impaired, manipulated the slide with finger on trigger 4–6 ft behind Day, and the gun discharged causing death	The discharge was accidental (slide slipped); conduct at most negligent; insufficient proof of conscious disregard of a substantial risk	Affirmed—viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational juror could find recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 (2017) (due process requires State prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734 (2015) (definition of "recklessly": knowing and disregarding a substantial risk)
State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457 (2005) (recklessness standard cited for homicide offenses)
In re Pers. Restraint of Heidari, 174 Wn.2d 288 (2012) (remand/conviction modification principles discussed)