State v. Budik, 173 Wash. 2d 727

Budik, a shooting victim, was charged with first degree rendering criminal assistance for allegedly concealing or deceiving investigators about the shooters.
Budik repeatedly stated he did not know who was responsible for the shooting; the State proceeded on a theory that his deception obstructed the investigation.
The jury convicted Budik; the trial court sentenced him to 13 months in prison within the standard range.
Appellate court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to address sufficiency of the evidence.
The central issue is whether Budik’s mere false disavowal of knowledge can satisfy the ‘deception’ element of RCW 9A.76.050(4).
The Court holds that rendering criminal assistance by deception requires an affirmative act or statement that tends to shield the shooter; a mere denial of knowledge is insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is sufficient evidence Budik rendered criminal assistance	State contends Budik’s false statements and conduct deceived police and delayed the investigation	Budik argues there was no affirmative act or obstruction; only nondisclosure or denial of knowledge	Insufficient evidence; conviction reversed and vacated

State v. Budik, 170 Wn.2d 1008 (2010) (supreme court case reviewing sufficiency of evidence for rendering criminal assistance)
State v. Williams, 171 Wn.2d 474 (2011) (requires conduct in addition to speech for obstruction; informs interpretation of deception)
People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App. 2d 97 (1969) (affirmative falsehoods to aid offender can constitute rendering assistance)
State v. Potter, 221 N.C. 153 (1942) (acknowledges that concealment of knowledge can constitute aiding the offender)
Tipton v. State, 126 Tex. Crim. 439 (1934) (false statements to witnesses can be treated as accomplice after the fact)
Clifford v. State (Oregon), 263 Or. 436 (1972) (demonstrates that denial of knowledge may not be sufficient; context matters)