State Of Washington, Respondent V Thomas Dean Gibson, Appellant

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION 11
2015 MAY 27 AM 9: 35
STATE of WASHINGTON
BY At.
14
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WA Q,) TON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
v.
THOMAS D. GIBSON,
DIVISION II
Respondent,
Appellant.
No. 46362 -8 -II
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
This court issued its unpublished opinion on May 19. 2015. There is a typographical error
in footnote 1. Therefore, the opinion is amended as follows:
Delete the language in footnote 1 and insert this language in its place:
A commissioner of this court initially considered Gibson' s appeal as a
motion on the merits under RAP 18. 14 and then transferred it to a panel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 09' 7,; day of 2015.

FILED
COURT OF. APPEALS
DIVISION II
Z015 MAY 19 AM 9: 06
ST IF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHING
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
THOMAS D. GIBSON,
No. 46362 -8 -I1
WA ,. NGTON
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LEE, J. — Thomas D. Gibson appeals from his conviction for failing to register as a sex
offender, arguing that the information failed to allege all of the essential elements of the crime.
The State concedes that the information was defective but contends that the error was harmless.
Rejecting the claim of harmless error, we reverse Gibson' s conviction and remand for further
proceedings.'
The information charging Gibson with failing to register as a sex offender lacked an
allegation that he knowingly failed to register. He was convicted, but, for reasons unrelated to this
appeal, the trial court granted him a new trial. In both trials, the to- convict instructions did include
the element that Gibson knowingly failed to register.
1 A commissioner of this court initially considered Dublin' s appeal as a motion on the merits
under RAP 18. 14 and then transferred it to a panel.

No. 46362 -8 -II
Gibson argues that by omitting an allegation that he knowingly failed to register as a sex
offender, the information failed to allege an essential element of the crime, rendering it defective
and requiring the reversal of his conviction. State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105 -06, 812 P.2d 86
1991). The State concedes that the information was defective because it omitted the element of
knowledge from the allegation that Gibson failed to report to the sheriff as require. However, the
State argues that the error is harmless because the to- convict instruction from his first trial, which
included the element of knowingly failing to register; put him on notice of that element before his
second trial. State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 157 -59, 822 P.2d 775 ( 1992). •
We rejected the application of harmless error to a very similar situation in which an
information omitted an essential element of the crime, the .to- convict instruction contained the
omitted element and the defendant went through a second trial. See State v. Courneya, 132 Wn.
App. 347, 352 -55, 131 P. 3d 343, review denied, 158 Wn.2d 1023 ( 2006). In Courneya, we held:
O] ur Supreme Court has specifically stated that proper jury instructions cannot
cure a defective information.... [ A]nd federal courts have strictly applied the rule.
Without amendment of the charging documents, the sufficiency of other sources of
the elements of the crime, such•as the jury instructions, as the State urges here, .. .
have all been rejected if the information itself does not include all essential elements
of the crime.
132 Wn. App. at 354.
And rejecting the State' s argument that the to- convict instruction from the first trial put
Coumeya on notice of the omitted element before the second trial, we held:
Despite the arguable satisfaction here of the notice policy explained in Kjorsvik,
allowing such exceptions would soon eclipse the rule and likely erode the notice
requirement entirely or embroil the courts and litigants in endless disputes about
whether and when proper notice of the charged crime' s elements were given to the
defendant. Accordingly, we reject the State' s invitation to begin eroding Kjorsvik's
bright -line rule that requires the information to advise the defendant of every
essential element of the charged crime. •
132 Wn. App. at 355.
2

No. 46362 -8 -11
Applying Courneya, we reverse Gibson' s conviction and remand for further proceedings.
Because we reverse Gibson' s conviction on this ground, we need not address Gibson' s contentions
raised in his Statement of Additional Grounds.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06.040,
it is so ordered.
We concur:
Johanson, C...
Lee, J.
3