State v. Williams, 244 P.3d 1018

Williams, released from King County jail on Sept. 13, 2008, allegedly assaulted Officer Shearer with a hemostat within 24 hours of release.
Charge: assault in the third degree; amended to include the aggravating factor that the offense occurred shortly after incarceration.
Trial was bifurcated to separate evidence of the aggravator from the underlying assault charge.
Jury found Williams guilty of assault in the third degree and, in a second phase, found the rapid recidivism aggravator by a special verdict form.
Trial court imposed an exceptional sentence of 36 months, within the statutory maximum of 60 months for the offense.
On appeal, Williams challenges sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, the rapid recidivism aggravator, the sentencing process, vagueness of the statute, and spectator misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault third degree	Williams argues insufficient evidence to prove intent and officer-status.	State contends sufficient proof of intentional stabbing of a law enforcement officer during duties.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction.
Adequacy of jury instructions on rapid recidivism	Rapid recidivism requires additional elements beyond 'shortly after release'.	Statutory aggravator is properly defined; Hughes and Saltz definitions clarify explanation, not elements.	Jury instruction adequate; no constitutional error.
Right to jury trial on aggravating factors	Additional Hughes/Saltz considerations must be found by jury as elements.	Aggravator is a single fact; extra explanations are not elements; no per se constitutional violation.	No error; jury-found aggravator valid within Blakely framework.
Vagueness of rapid recidivism statute applied	Term 'shortly after' and 'incarceration' are vague.	As applied, terms are clear; one-day gap fits ordinary understanding.	Not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Mistrial due to spectator misconduct	Spectator comments could prejudice the jury.	Court properly denied mistrial; comments were nonthreatening and not directed to influence verdict.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial not warranted.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (establishes that facts increasing penalty beyond the jury's verdict require jury finding)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be proven to a jury)
Hughes v. State, 154 Wash.2d 118 (2005) (rapid recidivism as aggravator requires jury determination; explains limitations)
Saltz v. State, 137 Wash. App. 576 (2007) (rapid recidivism factors; supports substantial and compelling reasons for exceptional sentence)
Butler v. State, 75 Wash. App. 47 (1994) (first articulation of rapid recidivism as a basis for exceptional sentence)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wash.2d 91 (2009) (due process and element-definition standards at sentencing)
State v. Clarke, 156 Wash.2d 880 (2006) (constitutional limits on judicial fact-finding for sentences within range)
State v. Gordon, 153 Wash. App. 516 (2009) (jurisdictional approach to jury instruction on aggravating factors; ongoing authority)
State v. Scott, 110 Wash.2d 682 (1988) (standards for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency)