State v. Montano

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the State failed to establish a prima facie case of intimidating a public servant under RCW 9A.76.180 because Montano's threats and angry conduct provided no independent evidence that he intended to influence the officers' official actions. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld dismissal of the intimidation charge under a Knapstad motion.

Holdings

1. To survive a Knapstad motion on a charge of intimidating a public servant, the State must provide some evidence of both a threat and an attempt or purpose to influence the public servant's official action. Threats themselves and generalized anger, without additional evidence suggesting an attempt to influence, are insufficient.
2. RCW 9A.76.180 does not require that the public servant be presently engaged in an official action when the threat is made; an attempted influence may concern future official action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to survive a Knapstad motion to dismiss the charge of intimidating a public servant under RCW 9A.76.180.
2. Whether threats and angry or violent conduct, without additional evidence independently suggesting an intent to influence a public servant's official action, establish a prima facie case of intimidation.

Disposition

reversed