State v. Clark, 302 P.3d 553

Clark appeals his conviction for intimidating a witness on the basis that the trial court erred by not giving his proposed definitional instruction of a true threat.
The incident began January 5, 2011, when a car crash occurred and Clark was seen at the scene.
Clark allegedly stated to Veronica Reczek, over the phone, “Don’t you know that snitches get stitches, bitch?” creating concern for a witness.
Clark testified he was highly intoxicated and unaware if he made the statement; he claimed lack of intent to threaten.
The State charged Clark with intimidating a witness; jury instructions defined the offense and the court refused the second part of Clark’s requested true-threat definition.
The court affirmed the conviction, applying Schaler to determine whether a true-threat instruction was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a true-threat instruction was necessary	Clark contends true threat instruction required	State argues instruction not required	No true-threat instruction was required

State v. Schaler, 169 Wn.2d 274 (2010) (true threat analysis; need for mens rea as to the result)
Kilburn v. State, 151 Wn.2d 36 (2004) (definition of true threats and protecting speech)
State v. Johnston, 156 Wn.2d 355 (2006) (bomb threat statute; true threat considerations)
State v. Allen, 176 Wn.2d 611 (2013) (requires true-threat instruction for certain crimes)
King, 135 Wn. App. 662 (2006) (witness intimidation; reliance on King superseded by Schaler)
State v. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. 5 (1996) (analysis of threats to property and speech)
State v. Ballew, 167 Wn. App. 359 (2012) (threats to injure property; mens rea considerations)
State v. Tellez, 141 Wn. App. 479 (2007) (felony telephone harassment; threat to kill)
Schaler (full citation above), 169 Wn.2d 274 (2010) (true threat framework; First Amendment protection)