In reading State v. Anderson, consider the following questions:

1. What was the defendant charged with in this case?

2. What are the key facts?

3. Was there a trial in this case? What was the result?

4. What is the key issue addressed by the parties and the court in this case?

5. What state of mind issue was addressed in this case? What was the prosecutor’s position with regard to this issue? What was the defense position? Which did the court accept?

6. Was the court’s analysis consistent with Semakula? With Bash? Why or why not? What effect, if any, does this case have on Semakula?

7. Which opinion do you prefer, the majority or the dissent? Why?

8. Write a jury instruction for RCW 9.41.040 in light of Anderson.

9. Does this case provide any new rules regarding the interpretation of criminal statutes with regard to mens rea requirements, or does it merely apply rules we already have?

10. Note at least two additional things from the case that you believe are important or that are confusing to you. Why do you think they matter?