State Of Washington, Respondent V. Gregory Paris, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
GREGORY PARIS,
Appellant.
No. 73292-7-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: August 8, 2016
cp
0\S
Schindler, J. — Gregory Paris appeals the jury conviction of attempted indecent
liberties. Paris argues the Washington pattern jury instruction defining "reasonable
doubt" is unconstitutional. 	We recently considered and rejected the same argument in
State v. Lizarraqa, 191 Wn. App. 530, 567, 364 P.3d 810 (2015). We adhere to our
decision, and affirm the jury conviction.
The State charged Gregory Paris with attempted indecent liberties in violation of
RCW 9A.28.020 and RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b).
At the conclusion of trial, the court instructed the jury on the definition of
"reasonable doubt" using 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury
Instructions: Criminal 4.01, at 27 (3d ed. Supp. 2014-15) (WPIC). 	Paris did not object
to the instruction. The jury convicted Paris.
For the first time on appeal, Paris claims WPIC 4.01 is unconstitutional. 	Paris
argues the language defining a reasonable doubt as "one for which a reason exists"
'..«") '

No. 73292-7-1/2
misstates the reasonable doubt standard by undermining the presumption of innocence
and shifting the burden of proof. A jury instruction that misstates the reasonable doubt
standard or shifts the burden of proof to the defendant is manifest constitutional error
that may be raised for the first time on appeal. 	RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Kalebaugh, 183
Wn.2d 578, 584-85, 355 P.3d 253 (2015); State v. Scott. 110 Wn.2d 682, 688 n.5, 757
P.2d 492 (1988).
We recently considered and rejected the same argument and challenge to WPIC
4.01 in Lizarraga, 191 Wn. App. at 567. We adhere to our decision in Lizarraga and
conclude the court did not err in using WPIC 4.01 to instruct the jury on reasonable
doubt.
Paris requests the court exercise its discretion under RCW 10.73.160(1) to waive
appellate costs. Under the nonexclusive factors in State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380,
391, 367 P.3d 612 (2016), we waive the imposition of appellate costs.1
We affirm Paris's conviction but waive the imposition of appellate costs.
WE CONCUR:
^QiJih^XL 	Qx
1*
1Becausewe waive the imposition of appellate costs, we need notaddress Paris's as-applied
substantive due process challenge to the imposition of appellate costs.