Opinion ID: 2508462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Unconstitutional to Fail to Use or Instruct Jury on Willful or Wanton Standard

Text: Axiomatic in constitutional jurisprudence is the requirement for the State [to] prove every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to be upheld. State v. Byrd, 125 Wash.2d 707, 713, 887 P.2d 396 (1995). This court has held, in the context of examining the reckless driving statute as a lesser included offense of felony flight from a police officer, that reckless driving requires either a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. State v. Parker, 102 Wash.2d 161, 164, 683 P.2d 189 (1984); see also id. at 168, 683 P.2d 189 (Utter, J., dissenting) (The crime of reckless driving... requires the jury to find a defendant conscious and capable of forming a purposeful mental state; he, too, must be found capable of driving with a `wilful [sic] or wanton' disregard for the safety of others. (quoting RCW 46.61.500 and WPIC 95.10)). It follows then that an element of reckless driving is acting with either willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. RCW 46.61.500(1). And since this definition of reckless driving applies to crimes of vehicular homicide and vehicular assault, the failure to instruct the jury on that element deprives the defendant of the constitutional right to a jury determination on all elements of the alleged crime. State v. Smith, 131 Wash.2d 258, 263, 930 P.2d 917 (1997) (It cannot be said that a defendant has had a fair trial if the jury must guess at the meaning of an essential element of a crime or if the jury might assume that an essential element need not be proved.).