State of Washington v. Tylor Thomas Buttolph
199 Wash. App. 813
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2015 Buttolph was serving community custody and was required to remain available and maintain contact with his community corrections officer (CCO).
- CCO Jeremy Taylor instructed Buttolph to report on May 19; Taylor wrote the date on a business card.
- Buttolph failed to report on May 19 and made no contact before or after; a warrant issued and he was arrested on June 3.
- The State charged Buttolph with escape from community custody under RCW 72.09.310, which requires the defendant to act "willfully."
- At trial Buttolph proposed an instruction defining "willful" as requiring purpose (a purposeful act); the court instead gave the WPIC instruction equating "willfully" with acting knowingly.
- Jury convicted; Buttolph appealed, arguing erroneous jury instruction and insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper mens rea for RCW 72.09.310 ("willfully") | State: "Willfully" is satisfied by knowledge under RCW 9A.08.010(4) and WPIC 10.05. | Buttolph: "Willful" requires purpose; knowledge is too low and could criminalize accidents/medical emergencies. | Court: Affirmed; "willfully" equals "knowingly" for RCW 72.09.310 because no plain legislative intent for a higher mens rea. |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State: Evidence that Buttolph knew of reporting requirement and failed to contact CCO supports conviction. | Buttolph: Evidence insufficient because no proof he acted purposefully. | Court: Rejects challenge as based on incorrect mens rea theory; no separate sufficiency reversal. |
| Appellate costs | State: Requests costs in conformity with RAP 14.2. | Buttolph: Seeks waiver due to indigency; did not file required indigency report. | Court: Declines to decide now due to noncompliance; leaves costs to commissioner if State files bill. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Danforth, 97 Wn.2d 255 (1982) (interpreting a failure-to-return work-release statute to require purposeful conduct to avoid criminalizing emergencies)
- State v. Hall, 104 Wn.2d 486 (1985) (discussing mens rea constructions and noting differences in historical meanings of "willful")
- Bishop v. City of Spokane, 142 Wn. App. 165 (2007) (presumption that legislature knows RCW 9A.08.010(4) equating willfulness with knowledge)
- State v. Willis, 153 Wn.2d 366 (2005) (standard of review for jury instruction errors)