Opinion ID: 2329361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Essential Elements

Text: ¶ 27 When the State charges a person with a crime, that person is entitled to notice of exactly what crime he or she is accused of committing. See State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93, 98, 812 P.2d 86 (1991); Const. art. I, § 22. That means in the charging document the State must charge all the essential elements of a crime. Id. at 101-02, 812 P.2d 86. This essential elements rule requires that the defendant be apprised of the elements of the crime charged and the conduct of the defendant which is alleged to have constituted that crime. Id. at 98, 812 P.2d 86 (citing State v. Leach, 113 Wash.2d 679, 782 P.2d 552 (1989)). If the State fails to do so, the defendant's constitutional rights of notice and due process are violated and a new trial is required. See id. at 97, 107-08, 812 P.2d 86. But, according to the majority's reasoning, if another crime appears in the information as an element of the charged crime, the defendant is presumed to know the essential elements of the other crime. Majority at 189-90. In other words, the majority acknowledges that not informing the defendant of the elements of a crime is a notice violation so fundamental it requires a new trial to remedy. Id. at 189. But then, with what I think is inconsistent reasoning, the majority concludes that if another crime is one of the elements of the charged crime, the defendant is presumed to know not only all the elements of that other crime, but also which specific elements the State intends to try. Id. at 189-90. ¶ 28 I cannot find an intellectually satisfying reason to treat crimes that are elements of another crime differently for notice purposes than crimes that are charged. The State, of course, must prove the elements of the predicate felony to prove the offense of felony murder. State v. Gamble, 154 Wash.2d 457, 466, 114 P.3d 646 (2005); see also State v. Carter, 154 Wash.2d 71, 80, 109 P.3d 823 (2005) (in order for a person to be found guilty of felony murder, the State must prove that he or she committed or attempted to commit a predicate felony); State v. Wanrow, 91 Wash.2d 301, 311, 588 P.2d 1320 (1978) (The intent necessary to prove the felony-murder is the intent necessary to prove the underlying felony. That intent must be proved by the State as a necessary element of the crime, and the question whether it was present is presented to the jury. [1] ). These cases make clear the jury must be instructed on and the State must actually prove each element of a predicate felony in felony murder. It follows that to prepare an adequate defense the defendant must be notified of what elements the State intends to prove. See State v. Royse, 66 Wash.2d 552, 556, 403 P.2d 838 (1965) (expressly connecting what must be alleged with what must be proved).