State of Washington v. Tiffany R. Denney, 39696-7

Tiffany Denney owned several dogs, including a pit bull mix, in rural Washington.
A Whitman County Sheriff's Deputy was bitten and injured by Denney's pit bull after entering Denney's fenced yard for a welfare check.
Denney’s dog had a history of aggressive behavior, including being fearful and aggressive around strangers and veterinarians.
Denney was convicted by a jury of owning a dog that attacks under RCW 16.08.100, a Class C felony.
Denney appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and unconstitutional vagueness in the dangerous dog statutes.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence on knowledge of danger	Denney did not know or have reason to know her dog was "potentially dangerous" per statute	The State argued Denney knew or should have known due to the dog's aggressive behavior and reputation	Sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding Denney knew/should have known the dog's propensity
Facial vagueness challenge to RCW 16.08.100 and RCW 16.08.070	Statutes criminalize regular dog behavior and restrict movement, implicating First Amendment rights	The State argued First Amendment was not implicated and only as-applied challenges are proper	The court declined to review facial challenge; no First Amendment right implicated
As-applied vagueness challenge	Ordinary people could not know what conduct was prohibited—"attack" and "known propensity" were vague terms	The statute is sufficiently definite for people of ordinary intelligence, especially given Denney's knowledge of her dog's behavior	Statute not vague as applied; Denney's conduct fell within its clear meaning
Definition of "attack" is unclear	Could believe the dog was only fearful/aggressive with no intent of attack	"Attack" can be interpreted by ordinary meaning, context, and statutory purpose	The statute, while not labeling "attack," is sufficiently definite in context

State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897 (Wash. 2016) (sufficiency of evidence review de novo)
State v. Davis, 182 Wn.2d 222 (Wash. 2014) (deferential review to jury)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bash, 130 Wn.2d 594 (Wash. 1996) (elements for owning a dangerous dog offense)
City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171 (Wash. 1990) (vagueness doctrine and facial challenges)
State v. Fraser, 199 Wn.2d 465 (Wash. 2022) (continued rule for as-applied vagueness review outside First Amendment)