Download in Word Perfect format

In reading State v. Semakula, 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 is stated in the statute? What was the prosecutor’s position with regard to the required state of mind? What was the defense position? Which did the court accept?

6. Was the court’s analysis consistent with Bash? Why or why not? Did the court characterize Bash as you understood it? Explain.

7. What do you think the court means by its statement on page 1, column 1:

This conclusion does not conflict with the requirement that a defendant must know the facts that make his or her conduct illegal, which we distinguish from requiring the State to prove that the defendant knew that the conduct itself was illegal.

How does that statement affect the outcome in Semakula?

8. Do you think the court properly characterizes the defendant’s argument?

If so, do you think the defendant could have made a better (more effective ) argument? What would you have argued? Why do you think it would have been better?

If not, how is the characterization incorrect? How should the argument have been characterized?

9. Why is unwitting possession an affirmative defense? Do you think that is appropriate? What problems do you see?

10. Why do you think the court was unwilling to imply a state of mind here when the court was willing to do so in Bash? How are these cases different?

11. Do you agree with the court’s result? Why or why not?

12. Write a jury instruction for RCW 9.41.040(1)(a) in light of Semakula.

13. Does this case provide any new rules regarding the interpretation of criminal statutes with regard to mens rea requirements? If so, what are they?

14. 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?