State Of Washington v. Samuel Neguse Rezene, 73358-3

At ~1:00 a.m. on April 22, 2014, Samuel Rezene drove away from marked Seattle Police vehicles after seeing officers; officers pursued.
Detective Thomas activated his patrol vehicle’s lights and siren; officers observed Rezene run at least one red light and drive 70–100 mph in 30–35 mph zones.
Rezene was charged by information with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle under RCW 46.61.024(1) and convicted after a bench trial.
On appeal Rezene argued the charging information omitted an essential element: it did not specify the method by which officers signaled him to stop (hand, voice, lights, or siren).
The information stated Rezene was given a "visual and audible signal" by a uniformed officer and that the pursuing vehicle "was equipped with lights and sirens." Rezene did not claim actual prejudice from the wording.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the information fairly implied the officers used lights and siren and was constitutionally sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the charging information omitted an essential element of RCW 46.61.024(1) by not specifying the method of signal	Rezene: information failed to allege the specific signaling method (hand, voice, light, or siren) so notice was inadequate	State: the information’s facts ("visual and audible signal" and vehicle equipped with lights and sirens) fairly imply method; information sufficient	Court: information constitutionally sufficient because it fairly implies officers used lights and siren; Rezene did not show actual prejudice
Whether Pittman (holding signaling method not essential) must be followed/decided	Rezene: urged court not to follow Pittman	State: urged court to adopt Pittman	Court: did not decide Pittman’s correctness because sufficiency was resolved on inference ground
Whether appellate costs should be awarded	Rezene: requested no costs due to indigency	State: entitled to usual costs unless indigency no longer applies	Court: denied immediate award; State may move with evidence of changed finances

State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153 (2013) (charging document must include essential elements for notice)
State v. Naillieux, 158 Wn. App. 630 (2010) (statutory citation alone may be insufficient in an information)
State v. Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (1991) (two-part test for first-time charging insufficiency challenges on appeal)
State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 (2010) (if charging document implies elements and no actual prejudice shown, information is sufficient)
State v. Pittman, 185 Wn. App. 614 (2015) (Division Two decision addressing whether signaling method is an essential element)
State v. Williams, 133 Wn. App. 714 (2006) (de novo review of charging document sufficiency)