State v. Stayton
| Decision Date | 30 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 6811-7-II,6811-7-II |
| Citation | 691 P.2d 596,39 Wn.App. 46 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Mervin B. STAYTON, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Anthony C. Otto, Deputy Pros. Atty., Port Orchard, for appellant.
Lynn S. Prunhuber, Terry W. Oostenbrug, Port Orchard (Court-appointed), for respondent.
Plaintiff, State of Washington, appeals from an order granting defendant, Mervin B. Stayton, a new trial following his conviction by jury verdict of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, RCW 46.61.024. Stayton does not cross-appeal from the trial court's denial of his alternative motion to arrest judgment. The only issue on appeal is the propriety of the "to convict" instruction given by the trial court to the jury. We hold, contrary to the trial court's post-trial determination, that the instruction properly stated the law.
We need not detail the facts other than to say that the jury could well have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the following facts occurred. On June 9, 1982, defendant drove a vehicle in Kitsap County at a high rate of speed. A uniformed police officer whose vehicle was appropriately marked as an official police vehicle was stationed by the side of the road. He signaled defendant to stop, defendant willfully failed to stop and, while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, drove in a manner indicating a wanton and willful disregard for lives or property of others.
The statute, RCW 46.61.024, in effect on June 9, 1982, provided:
Any driver of a motor vehicle who wilfully fails or refuses to immediately bring his vehicle to a stop and who drives his vehicle in a manner indicating a wanton and 1 wilful disregard for the lives or property of others while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony. The signal given by the police officer may be hand, voice, emergency light, or siren. The officer giving such a signal shall be in uniform and his vehicle shall be appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle.
The instruction considered erroneous by the trial judge informed the jury:
To convict the defendant of the crime of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about the 9th day of June, 1982, the defendant operated a motor vehicle;
(2) That the defendant was given a visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop by a uniformed police officer whose vehicle was appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle;
(3) That the defendant willfully failed or refused to immediately bring his vehicle to a stop;
(4) That the defendant drove his vehicle in a manner indicating a wanton and willful disregard for the lives or property of others while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle;
(5) That the acts occurred in Kitsap County, Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
On defendant's motion for new trial, the trial court concluded that element (3) did not sufficiently set forth an element of the crime because it did not require that defendant's willful failure to stop occurred while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. The trial court was misled by a statement in State v. Mather, 28 Wash.App. 700, 626 P.2d 44 (1981). In Mather the defense contended that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it did not require knowledge that the pursuing vehicle was a police vehicle. Answering that contention, the Mather court declared:
The statute, however, requires that the defendant wilfully fail and refuse to stop his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Jennings
...which was changed to "wanton or wilful" effective June 10, 1982. Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 47, § 25. See State v. Stayton, 39 Wash.App. 46, 691 P.2d 596, 597 n. 1 (1984). 2. That the Washington statute criminalizes conduct showing disregard for either persons or property does not ren......
-
State v. Treat
...for others in attempting to elude the police vehicle. State v. Hudson, 85 Wash.App. 401, 403, 932 P.2d 714 (1997); State v. Stayton, 39 Wash. App. 46, 49, 691 P.2d 596 (1984). The purpose of the eluding statute is to prevent "`unreasonable conduct in resisting law enforcement activities.'" ......
-
State v. Nord
...court considered the relationship between the word "attempt" and the elements of the attempting to elude statute in State v. Stavton, 39 Wn.App. 46, 691 P.2d 596 (1984). The Stavton court, considered an earlier version of the attempting to elude statute in the context of a challenged "to co......
-
State v. Nord
...court considered the relationship between the word "attempt" and the elements of the attempting to elude statute in State v. Stayton, 39 Wn. App. 46, 691 P.2d 596 (1984). The Stayton court, considered an earlier version of the attempting to elude statute in the context of a challenged "to c......