State Of Washington, V Patrick Nathan Shenaurlt, 48941-4

On Nov. 15, 2015, Patrick N. Shenaurlt was confronted by officers for loud yelling; he at times complied (whispered) but later resisted arrest.
During the arrest sequence Shenaurlt balled his fist, elbowed Officer Spangler in the face, kicked Officer Waubanascum in the knee, threw objects (including a bicycle) at officers, and fled; officers used stun devices and pepper spray.
The State charged Shenaurlt with two counts of third-degree assault on law enforcement (RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g)).
During deliberations the jury asked whether the intent definition in Instruction 9 referred to any crime or specifically to assault; the judge replied, without notifying counsel, “You must go off the instructions as written.”
Shenaurlt moved for a new trial/ arrest of judgment claiming the court erred by answering the jury without consulting counsel and that evidence was insufficient to prove intent; the trial court denied relief and the convictions were appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s response to a jury question without notifying counsel was reversible error	Shenaurlt: error was prejudicial because the question addressed intent and he was deprived of opportunity to seek a clarifying/supplemental instruction	State: the court’s response was neutral, conveyed no substantive information, and was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: error occurred but was harmless — response was neutral and merely directed jurors to the existing instructions
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the intent element of third-degree assault	Shenaurlt: mental health evidence (e.g., claiming to be Jesus, incoherence) undermined any finding of purposeful intent to assault	State: witnesses’ observations (fist clenching, deliberate elbow/kick, looking at officers, throwing objects, fighting stance, flight) supported a rational finding of purposeful intent	Court: sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding of intent; convictions affirmed

State v. Jasper, 158 Wn. App. 518 (instruction to refer to existing instructions is neutral/harmless)
State v. Johnson, 56 Wn.2d 700 (trial judge’s neutral refusal to provide info to jury can be harmless error)
State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389 (State bears burden to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt after defendant shows prejudicial communication)
State v. Brown, 94 Wn. App. 327 (intent for assault is purposeful objective to strike or hit)
State v. Sweany, 174 Wn.2d 909 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)