State Of Washington, Resp-cross App V. Greg Parson, App-cross Respondent

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

)
) No. 73123-8-I
Respondent, )
) DIVISION ONE
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
GREG PARSON, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: March 7, 2016

TRICKEY, J. — Greg Parson appeals his judgment and sentence for his two
convictions of second degree burglary. He contends that the trial court erred by
giving a constitutionally defective reasonable doubt instruction. We disagree and
therefore affirm.

FACTS

in December 2014, the State charged Parson with two counts of second
degree burglary. The State alleged that on two separate days in August, Parson
stole liquor from an Albertsons store located in Mill Creek, Washington. It further
alleged the aggravating factor of rapid recidivism, based on the fact that Parson
committed these crimes shortly after being released from incarceration.

The case proceeded to a bifurcated trial at Parson's request. Specifically,
the burglary charges proceeded to a jury trial, and the recent recidivism
aggravators proceeded to a bench trial. At the jury trial on the underlying burglary
charges, the court instructed the jury on reasonable doubt using 11 Washington

Practice: Washington Pattem Jury Instructions: Criminal 4.01, at 85 (3d ed. 2008)
(WPIC).

No. 73123-8-1/2
The jury found Parson guilty of both counts. The court found that Parson's
commission of the offenses constituted 	rapid recidivism. 	The court imposed
concurrent aggravated exceptional sentences of 18 months on each conviction.
Parson appeals.
ANALYSIS
Parson's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by giving a
constitutionally defective 	reasonable doubt instruction. 	He contends that the
instruction 	improperly 	added an 	articulation 	requirement 	and 	impermissibly
undermined the presumption of innocence. 	We disagree.
The trial court gave a reasonable doubt jury instruction that was identical to
WPIC 4.01. 	In relevant part, that instruction states: "A reasonable doubt is one for
which a reason exists and may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence."1
In State v. Bennett, our Supreme Court directed trial courts to use WPIC
4.01 in all criminal cases. 	161 Wn.2d 303, 318, 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 	More
recently, in State v. Kalebaugh, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that WPIC 4.01 was
the "proper" instruction and "the correct legal instruction on reasonable doubt." 183
Wn.2d 578, 585-86, 355 P.3d 253 (2015). 	This court recently noted the Supreme
Court's directive and upheld the use of WPIC 4.01 in State v. Lizarraqa. 	Wn.
App. 	, 364 P.3d 810, 830 (2015). 	In accordance with these cases, we reject
the arguments that Parson presents in this appeal.
1 Clerk's Papers at 26.

No. 73123-8-I/3

We affirm the judgment and sentence.

WE CONCUR:

Loegeiriet Sd

lrickey

i

COX,

Sw