Opinion ID: 720696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supreme Court of Washington.

Text: 18 Hanna appealed his conviction contending that Instruction 9 was constitutional error. 1 He argued that the instruction impermissibly allowed the jury to ignore the evidence and to convict him based solely on its determination that he was driving in excess of the speed limit. 19 The Supreme Court of Washington rejected Hanna's argument. Hanna, 871 P.2d at 139-40. It first noted that Instructions 1, 8 and 13 cautioned the jurors to consider all of the evidence before accepting the inference. Id. 871 P.2d at 139. In consideration of all of the evidence, the inference was adequately supported by the prosecution's case. Id. 871 P.2d at 140. If the prosecution introduces facts which support the inference to the degree required by due process, it is entitled to an inference instruction. In that event, it is irrelevant whether the defendant's version of facts also supports the inference. Id. Three justices dissented, criticizing the majority for reducing a significant constitutional question to a determination whether there was sufficient evidence to convict. Id. 871 P.2d at 142 (Johnson, J., dissenting). 20 Under the instructions taken as a whole, a reasonable juror was entitled to satisfy the element of recklessness with all the evidence available or with the evidence Hanna was speeding. Thus, instruction 9 yields an unconstitutional result that the remaining instructions failed to cure. 21 Id. 871 P.2d at 143. 22