State Of Washington, Respondent V. Aaron W. Trotter, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
G=1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE CA c) > •••••1 r— rn -11 -7> STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. AARON WALLACE TROTTER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 76732-1-1 %° X r-CI z 0+4 UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: July 31, 2017 VERELLEN, C.J. — A jury convicted Aaron Trotter of assault with a deadly weapon in the second degree. Trotter seeks reversal of his conviction, arguing that the jury instruction provided at his trial unconstitutionally defined "reasonable doubt." The trial court instructed the jury using the Washington pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt, WPIC 4.01, stating in part, A reasonable doubt is one for which a reason exists and may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence, If, from such consideration, you have an abiding belief in the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (11 Trotter claims that defining a reasonable doubt as "one for which a reason exists" erroneously tells jurors that they must be able to articulate a reason for any 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL, 4.01 at 93 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC); Clerk's Papers at 46. 1 > 4-t.1 Crl rri rri No. 76732-1-1-2 doubt. He thus argues WPIC 4.01 unconstitutionally undermines the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. Our Supreme Court has mandated that an instruction in the words of WPIC 4.01 be given in all cases2 and recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of the challenged instruction.3 We have recognized this controlling authority.4 The trial court did not err by doing the same. In any event, WPIC 4.01 does not require jurors to articulate a reason. "(Al doubt for which a reason exists" is not the same as "a doubt for which a reason can be given."5 None of Trotter's arguments are persuasive. We affirm.° WE CONCUR: 4i, / GtodeaV , a, ' 2 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 318, 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 State v. Kalebauoh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 586-87, 355 P.3d 253 (2015). 4 State v. Lizarraqa, 191 Wn. App. 530, 567, 364 P.3d 810 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1022 (2016). 5 Kalebauoh, 183 Wn.2d at 584. 6 Because Trotter fails to "inform the court of the nature and occurrence of [the] alleged errors" in his vague and general statement of additional grounds, we refrain from addressing those arguments. RAP 10.10(c). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
