Opinion ID: 2630484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The State's failure to prove an essential element of the charged crime requires reversing Eaton's conviction

Text: ¶ 38 The concurrence concedes there was error which may require reversal because the State misidentified the drug in the information. But the concurrence asserts a variance between the information and conviction renders the information defective and requires reversal if the faulty information prejudices the accused either by misleading him in making his defense or by exposing him to double jeopardy. Concurrence at 1274 (citing State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash.2d 705, 718, 107 P.3d 728 (2005)). However, unlike Tvedt there is no allegation here that the information failed to include all the essential elements of a crime. [8] By relying on Tvedt the concurrence fails to recognize that Eaton's information was not defective but rather appropriately charged Eaton with possession of amphetamine. The information was complete in all respects and charged Eaton with a crime which the State did not prove and the jury did not consider. In other words, the problem with Eaton's conviction stems not from the information, which was effective, but rather from the State's failure of proof and the jury instructions. ¶ 39 Although Eaton was charged only with possession of amphetamine, the State attempted to prove Eaton possessed cocaine. Fundamentally [t]he State must 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). Since the State failed to present any evidence Eaton possessed amphetamine, an essential element, Eaton's conviction was without factual support. ¶ 40 In addition, the jury instruction used here also requires reversal of Eaton's conviction. A jury to-convict instruction must contain all essential elements of the crime to be adequate to support a conviction. State v. DeRyke, 149 Wash.2d 906, 910, 73 P.3d 1000 (2003). Reversal of conviction is required if the State is relieved of its burden to prove all elements based on the deficient instruction. State v. Brown, 147 Wash.2d 330, 339, 58 P.3d 889 (2002). Here, the jury instruction failed to require the jury to find that Eaton possessed amphetamine, an essential element of the crime. ¶ 41 Accordingly I dissent.