State Of Washington, Respondent V. Adan Isack Yusuf, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
ADAN ISACK YUSUF,
Appellant.
No. 72056-2-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	JUN i 5 2015
en
C_
r"
cn
op
Per Curiam — Adan Yusuf appeals his convictions for first and second degree
assault, arguing that the court's reasonable doubt instruction is unconstitutional
because it "tells jurors they must be able to explain or articulate a reason for having a
reasonable doubt." We affirm.
There is no articulation requirement in the instruction, which is taken from 11
Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 4.01, at 85 (3d ed.
2008 (WPIC). 	The instruction simply states that "[a] reasonable doubt is one for which a
reason exists 	... It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person
after.. . considering all of the evidence." Clerk's Papers at 55; WPIC 4.01 (emphasis
added). 	The instruction has been repeatedly approved by the Washington State
Supreme Court and this court. 	See e.g., State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 759-60, 278
P.3d 653 (2012) (noting that prosecutor's argument properly described "reasonable
doubt as a 'doubt for which a reason exists'"); 	State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 307,
165 P.3d 1241 (2007); State v. Tanzvmore, 54 Wn.2d 290, 291 n.2, 340 P.2d 178
(1959); State v. Harras, 25 Wash. 416, 421, 65 P. 774 (1901); State v. Thompson, 13

No. 72056-2-1/2
Wn. App. 1,4-5, 533 P.2d 395 (1975); State v. Cosden, 18 Wn. App. 213, 221, 568
P.2d 802 (1977). 	We are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court. 	State v. Gore.
101 Wn.2d 481, 486-87, 681 P.2d 227 (1984).
In addition, in Thompson, Division Two of this court expressly rejected the
precise argument made here, stating,
Furthermore, the particular phrase, when read in the context of the
entire instruction does not direct the jury to assign a reason for their
doubts, but merely points out that their doubts must be based on reason,
and not something vague or imaginary. A phrase in this context has been
declared satisfactory in this jurisdiction for over 70 years. 	State v. Harras,
25 Wash. 416, 65 P. 774 (1901).
Thompson, 13 Wn. App. at 5. We adhere to the decision in Thompson.
Yusuf's pro se statement of additional grounds for review raises no reviewable
issues.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
V&^wPO.,
A-< 	/