State of Washington v. Shane Kyle Deweber, 33247-1

After consuming large amounts of Adderall and alcohol, Shane Deweber went to his estranged wife's RV, behaved erratically, and later confronted responding deputies with a sword before fleeing in his pickup.
Deweber drove at high speed, disabled headlights, and later returned and rammed two parked patrol cars (with lights on), seriously damaging them; officers were injured; Deweber shouted "just fucking shoot me" and was subdued after taser deployments.
Charged with two counts of assault (originally first degree, jury convicted of second degree on both) and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle; both assault counts included allegations of use of a deadly weapon (vehicle) and that victims were law enforcement officers.
Jury was instructed on first and second degree assault but the court refused defense-requested instruction on third degree assault; jury found Deweber guilty of eluding and both counts of second degree assault and answered "yes" on special verdict forms finding the law-enforcement-victim aggravator (the special verdict forms omitted the statutory element that defendant knew the victims were officers).
At sentencing the court imposed an exceptional aggravated sentence based on the law-enforcement-victim aggravator, making factual findings (including that Deweber knew the victims were officers) that were not explicitly found on the special verdict forms; defense objected, appealing after sentence was imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Deweber)	Held
Whether the trial court could impose an exceptional sentence based on an aggravator when the jury's special verdict omitted an element (knowledge that victims were officers)	Jury instructions correctly stated the aggravator's elements; jury answered the special verdict affirmatively, so court could infer the omitted element and impose the aggravator	Special verdicts asked about only some elements; judge cannot rely on its own factual finding or infer a jury finding for an omitted element without violating Apprendi/Blakely jury-rights principles	Court vacated the exceptional sentence (Blakely error): judge exceeded allowable sentencing facts because jury did not explicitly find every element required for the aggravator; remanded for resentencing
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a third-degree assault instruction	The evidence showed use of the vehicle as a deadly weapon and justified only first/second-degree instructions	Evidence permitted an inference that the vehicle might not have been readily capable of causing death/substantial bodily harm, so third-degree instruction should have been given	Court affirmed refusal: evidence (speed, damage, officer testimony, eyewitnesses) did not affirmatively establish circumstances limited to third degree; no lesser-offense instruction required

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Sixth Amendment requires jury finding of facts that increase statutory maximum sentence)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010) (under state constitution, Blakely errors are not harmless; judge cannot impose enhancements not authorized by jury special verdict)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (some omitted jury findings may be subject to harmless-error analysis)
State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (2000) (test for giving lesser-degree offense instruction: legal prongs plus factual showing that only lesser offense reasonably supported by evidence)