State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wn. 2d 1

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court interpreted RCW 9.61.230, Washington’s telephone harassment statute, to require that a defendant form the intent to harass at the time the defendant initiates the call to the victim. The court held that the trial court’s jury instruction improperly allowed the jury to find that intent formed at any time during the call, reversed the conviction, and authorized a retrial because the evidence was sufficient.

Holdings

1. Telephone harassment requires proof that the defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim when the defendant initiated the call to that victim, not at any later point during the conversation.
2. The trial court improperly instructed the jury by stating that making a telephone call referred to the entire call rather than its initiation, because the instruction permitted the jury to find the requisite intent formed after the call began.
3. Reversal of the conviction for instructional error did not bar retrial because the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Paris formed the intent to harass at the initiation of the call.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RCW 9.61.230 requires a defendant to form the specific intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass at the initiation of the telephone call or permits formation of that intent at any time during the call.
2. Whether the trial court's jury instructions improperly stated the temporal requirement for the intent element of felony telephone harassment.
3. Whether reversal of the conviction barred retrial when the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Paris formed the requisite intent at the initiation of the call.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded