State v. Morgan, 163 Wash. App. 341

Morgan was charged by second amended information with unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and conspiracy to intimidate a witness.
The State sought a sentence enhancement under RCW 69.50.435(1) alleging delivery occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop.
The jury convicted Morgan and, by special verdict, found that the facts required for the sentence enhancement were proved.
Morgan challenged the conspiracy charge as constitutionally deficient for failing to allege all elements, and challenged a jury instruction on unanimity related to the sentence enhancement.
The court addressed both challenges, ultimately holding the information sufficient and the unanimity instruction erroneous but not constitutionally reversible, and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the information allege all elements of conspiracy to intimidate a witness?	Morgan argues the information omits intent and agreement elements.	Morgan contends the document fails to plead essential elements.	Information sufficiently alleges conspiracy to intimidate a witness.
Is the unanimity instruction on the sentence enhancement constitutionally reversible error when not raised at trial?	Morgan asserts the error warrants reversal.	State argues the error is nonconstitutional and waived.	Instruction erroneous but not constitutionally reversible; error waived.
May the court address the sufficiency of the charging document on appeal under liberal construction?	Morgan relies on liberal construction to validate the charge.	State contends adequate notice was provided.	Charging document sufficiently apprised Morgan of the charged conspiracy.

State v. Campbell, 125 Wash.2d 797 (1995) (essential elements and notice in charging documents)
State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93 (1991) (essential elements not exact statutory language; notice required)
State v. Hopper, 118 Wash.2d 151 (1992) (liberal construction of charging documents when challenged on appeal)
State v. Moavenzadeh, 135 Wash.2d 359 (1998) (intent may be implied from manner of description)
State v. Tunney, 129 Wash.2d 336 (1996) (intent imputation when describing offense)
State v. McCarty, 140 Wash.2d 420 (2000) (conspiracy requires agreement; common meaning of conspiracy)
State v. Bashaw, 169 Wash.2d 133 (2010) (unanimity for absence of a sentence enhancement; policy basis)
State v. Goldberg, 149 Wash.2d 888 (2003) (precedent on unanimity and nonunanimous acquittal)
State v. Nunez, 160 Wash.App. 150 (2011) (unanimity-related instructional error not constitutional)
State v. Labanowski, 117 Wash.2d 405 (1991) (judicial economy and finality in unanimity requirements)
State v. Ryan, 160 Wash.App. 944 (2011) (discussion of Bashaw rule and appealability)
State v. Guzman Nunez, 160 Wash.App. 150 (2011) (unanimity instruction not constitutional error)