State v. Sims, s. 57661-1
| Decision Date | 21 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | 57672-6,Nos. 57661-1,s. 57661-1 |
| Citation | 119 Wn.2d 138,829 P.2d 1075 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Richard D. SIMS, Petitioner. STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Barbara LEONARD, Petitioner. |
Patricia Novotny, Washington Appellate Defender, Seattle, for petitioners.
Seth Dawson, Snohomish County Prosecutor, Seth Aaron Fine, Deputy, Everett, Kevin M. Korsmo, Deputy, Spokane, for respondent.
The two defendants were charged in a single information with two counts concerning a controlled substance. Count I charged possession of acontrolled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver and Count II, possession of a controlled substance.
The main issue is whether the information was constitutionally sufficient to charge a crime under RCW 69.50.401(a). The Court of Appeals held the information was sufficient as to both defendants. We affirm.
Defendants were charged in a single information:
Clerk's Papers of Defendant Sims, at 55; Supplemental Clerk's Papers of Defendant Leonard, at 2.
The defendants' trials were severed; each was convicted as charged. No challenge to the sufficiency of the information was made at trial. In both cases, the trial courts dismissed the simple possession charge, reasoning that it merged with the charge of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver.
Defendant Sims raised a single issue in the Court of Appeals: The information is constitutionally defective because it omits an essential element of the crime. Defendant Leonard also raised a single issue: In a prosecution of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver while armed with a deadly weapon where the defendant was found to be in constructive possession of a handgun, must the prosecution prove the handgun was operable?
The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant Sims' conviction in State v. Sims, 59 Wash.App. 127, 796 P.2d 434 (1990), review granted, 117 Wash.2d 1008, 816 P.2d 1224 (1991). Defendant Leonard's conviction was affirmed by a commissioner's ruling on the State's motion on the merits. Leonard's challenge to the sufficiency of the information was raised for the first time in a motion to modify the ruling on the motion on the merits. The Court of Appeals denied Leonard's motion in view of its decision in Sims.
Each defendant petitioned for review, limited solely to sufficiency of the information. The only issue before the court is: When challenged for the first time on appeal, is an information constitutionally sufficient where it charges that "defendants, on or about the 6th day of February, 1987, did unlawfully possess, with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance, to-wit: marijuana ..."?
The appropriate question when the constitutionality of a charging information is first raised on appeal is:
(1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or she was nonetheless actually prejudiced by the inartful language which caused a lack of notice?
(Footnote omitted.) State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93, 105-6, 812 P.2d 86 (1991).
Defendants were charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. The statutory elements of the crime are (1) unlawful possession (2) with intent to manufacture or deliver (3) a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana. RCW 69.50.401(a).
Defendants argue that this crime has an additional, common law element, "guilty knowledge" of the nature of the controlled substance. In State v. Boyer, 91 Wash.2d 342, 344, 588 P.2d 1151 (1979), this court held that guilty knowledge, i.e., an understanding of the identity of the product being delivered, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a defendant of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance under RCW 69.50.401(a). Defendants contend that under Boyer, guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime of unlawful possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance and therefore must be included in the information. To date, Boyer has not been applied to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...intentionally acts knowingly.... Therefore, there is no need for an additional mental element of guilty knowledge.State v. Sims, 119 Wash.2d 138, 142, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992). Accordingly, the instruction was not deficient for failing to state that Jones “knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously......
-
State v. Maxfield
...113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856, 125 L.Ed.2d 556, 568 (1993).45 RCW 69.50.401; RCW 69.50.101(p), (y).46 RCW 69.50.401(a); State v. Sims, 119 Wash.2d 138, 141, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992).47 State v. Garza-Villarreal, 123 Wash.2d 42, 47, 864 P.2d 1378 (1993) (quoting State v. Lessley, 118 Wash.2d 773, 778, 82......
-
State Of Wash. v. Sibert
...with intent to deliver: (1) unlawful possession, (2) with intent to deliver, (3) a controlled substance.3 State v. Sims, 119 Wash.2d 138, 141-42, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992) (citing former RCW 69.50.401(a) (1979)). As a result, the jury convicted Sibert, as charged, of controlled substance violati......
-
State v. Franks
...State v. Valdobinos, 122 Wash.2d 270, 858 P.2d 199 (1993). State v. Davis, 119 Wash.2d 657, 835 P.2d 1039 (1992). State v. Sims, 119 Wash.2d 138, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992). State v. Hopper, 118 Wash.2d 151, 822 P.2d 775 (1992). State v. Grant, 104 Wash.App. 715, 17 P.3d 674 (2001). State v. Kraj......