State Of Washington, V Olajuwon Lee Jones, 48417-0

On August 8, 2015, 14-year-old L.Z. was approached outside a library by Olajuwon Jones, a stranger who offered her a ride and to walk her home; she declined, called her mother, and police arrested Jones.
The State charged Jones with one count of luring under RCW 9A.40.090 (luring a person under 16 into an area obscured from the public or into a vehicle when the perpetrator is unknown and lacks parental consent).
At trial the court instructed the jury on the statutory elements of luring but did not instruct that the State must prove the defendant’s criminal intent to harm the minor beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury found Jones guilty; Jones appealed, arguing the omission was reversible error.
This court reviewed the instructions de novo and considered the State’s concession that the jury was not instructed on the requisite intent element as defined by controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instructions errorfully omitted an instruction that the State must prove criminal intent to harm the minor beyond a reasonable doubt	State concedes the instructions omitted the intent burden	Jones argues the omission relieved the State of proving an essential element (intent to harm)	The court held the omission was reversible error and reversed for a new trial

State v. Homan, 191 Wn. App. 759 (2015) (construed RCW 9A.40.090 to include an implied element requiring intent to harm the minor)
State v. Brown, 147 Wn.2d 330 (2002) (instructions that relieve the State of proving every element require automatic reversal)
State v. Sibert, 168 Wn.2d 306 (2010) (jury must be instructed that the State bears burden to prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709 (2006) (jury instructions reviewed de novo)