State Of Washington v. Randy Allen Harkey, 75257-0

Late-night, two-lane rural road: Harkey passed a marked Snohomish County deputy at high speed.
Deputy activated lights and siren; Harkey continued, accelerating to about 70 mph in a 40 mph zone for roughly 0.4 miles.
Road segment was narrow with no right shoulder; driveways existed on the left; no other traffic present.
When the deputy caught up, Harkey made an un-signaled quick turn into a driveway (his residence), exited the car, and fled on foot over a fence after being ordered to stop.
K-9 tracking led to Harkey’s capture; he was convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle (other convictions not at issue on appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: did evidence show Harkey failed to "immediately" stop (as soon as reasonably possible) after a police signal?	State: Harkey kept accelerating for ~0.4 miles after lights/siren, turned into driveway without signaling, then fled — a jury could infer he chose not to stop immediately.	Harkey: he stopped within ~0.4 miles (~20 seconds at 70 mph); lack of right shoulder made earlier safe stopping impracticable; he reasonably waited for his driveway.	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational juror to conclude Harkey did not stop as soon as reasonably possible.

State v. Sherman, 98 Wn.2d 53 (defining "immediately" as "as soon as reasonably possible" in eluding context)
State v. Perez, 166 Wn. App. 55 (evidence sufficient where defendant accelerated, ran, and did not stop immediately after signal)
State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (challenge to sufficiency admits truth of State's evidence and reasonable inferences)
Kim v. Lakeside Adult Family Home, 185 Wn.2d 532 (fact questions for jury on "immediately" issue)