State v. Ryan, 160 Wash. App. 944

George Ryan and Evette White had a tumultuous relationship with multiple domestic violence reports.
During the June 2009 incident, Ryan brandished a knife near White, threatening to cut and kill her and stating their daughters would lose a mother.
Ryan cut his own leg and fled; police found him under a tarp with a knife on his person after White alerted authorities.
Ryan was charged with second degree assault and felony harassment, with two aggravating factors: domestic violence and a pattern of abuse; also charged for committing felony harassment while armed with a deadly weapon.
The jury convicted Ryan on both counts; the trial court imposed exceptional sentences of 70 months and 60 months.
On appeal, Ryan challenged the jury instructions on special verdicts and the exclusion of certain evidence; focus of the decision is the jury unanimity instruction for sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unanimity instruction on sentencing verdicts was error	Ryan argues Bashaw requires nonunanimous verdicts for sentencing factual determinations.	State contends Bashaw does not apply to aggravating circumstances and that unanimity is required to prove those facts.	Unanimity requirement for sentencing verdicts is error; vacate and remand.
Whether Bashaw applies to aggravating circumstances or only sentence enhancements	Bashaw should apply, treating unanimity errors as constitutional in nature.	Bashaw does not govern aggravating-fact determinations independent of sentencing enhancements.	Bashaw applies to aggravating circumstances; unanimity errors are constitutional and reversible.
Whether Ryan’s exceptional sentences must be vacated and remanded due to the instructional error	Instruction error tainted the sentencing verdicts; must be vacated.	No prejudice shown; otherwise affirmed.	Exceptional sentences vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with Bashaw.

State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133 (2010) (unanimity required for sentencing findings; nonunanimous no-verdict not final)
State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888 (2003) (jury must unanimously agree on 'yes' to answer; cannot force unanimity on 'no' verdict)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for constitutional challenges)
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (2007) (read statute as a whole; interpret unanimity and sentencing provisions)
State v. Guzman Nunez, 160 Wn. App. 150 (2011) (discussion of Bashaw principles in appellate context)