Volume 39 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Insanity — Competency To Stand Trial —</bold> <bold>Determination.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>10.77.060</cross_reference>(1), which requires a judge to order an examination of a defendant's mental condition when there is "reason to doubt" his competency, a trial judge has considerable discretion in deciding whether an examination is necessary. The judge should consider the defendant's apparent understanding of the charge and its consequences along with the facts upon which the charge is based, and the defendant's ability to relate the facts to his counsel and assist in his defense. Considerable weight should be given to the opinion of defense counsel but the decision is that of the judge alone.<page_number>Page 438</page_number>

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Knowledge — Instruction.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>9A.08.010</cross_reference>(1)(b)(ii) a criminal knowledge instruction may permit, but not require, the jury to infer knowledge of the criminality of an act if a defendant has information which would lead a reasonable person to believe that facts exist which are described as a crime by statute. Such an instruction must allow the jury to also consider evidence as to the subjective intelligence or mental condition of the defendant. <bold>[2] Robbery — First Degree Robbery — Accomplice — Knowledge of</bold> <bold>Weapon.</bold> An accomplice does not need to know that the principal was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of a first degree robbery to be found guilty under RCW <cross_reference>9A.56.200</cross_reference>. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency</bold> <bold>of Evidence — In General.</bold> A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence before the jury requires that the evidence be viewed<page_number>Page 917</page_number> most favorably to the State to determine if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Weapon — Deadly Weapon — Possession by</bold> <bold>Coparticipant — Knowledge of Defendant.</bold> The sentence of an unarmed defendant may not be enhanced under RCW <cross_reference>9.95.015</cross_reference> and. 040 based on a coparticipant's possession of a deadly weapon unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the coparticipant was armed with the deadly weapon when the crime was committed. <bold>[5] Criminal Law — Weapon — Deadly Weapon — Firearm — Standard</bold> <bold>of Proof.</bold> When the deadly weapon alleged to have been used in a crime is a firearm, the punishment enhancement statutes (RCW 9.41.025 and <cross_reference>9.95.040</cross_reference>) are construed consistently. If the evidence is insufficient to support application of either statute, it is insufficient to support application of the other.