Analysis/Commentary:  The issues here are whether a jury instruction on attempting to elude can use the willful or wanton language to define reckless manner and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove community placement for sentencing purposes.  The COA held that the jury instruction was harmless error and the other issues were without merit.

            The facts are amusing.  Mr. Ridgley is seen entering a van and the local police try to stop him.  They proceed at 35 miles per hour with Mr. Ridgley waving the police car on by.  Finally, Mr. Ridgley stops and the officer yells “Scott turn your vehicle off”.  Then it gets interesting – Mr. Ridgley speeds off and is finally forced off the road and into a field where he escapes.  Five months later, they finally arrest him and he’s charged and convicted.

            Because he did not object to the jury instructions at trial (remember to take exception to these kinds of things, folks), the Court analyzed the question of whether it was a manifest error affecting a constitutional right.  This means it has to be both truly constitutional error and an error that has practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.  Even if an error is constitutional  it can be harmless if the appeals court decides that the jury would have found the person guilty anyway. 

            The instructions in this case did not use the correct language as required by State v. Roggenkamp, 115 Wn App 927, 64 P3d 92 (2003) which said that “driving in a reckless manner means driving in a rash or heedless manner indifferent to the consequences” and that “reckless manner contemplated a lesser mental state than that of willful or wanton standard”.  Because of this ruling “reckless manner” standard in RCW 46.61.024 is the same as that found in RCW 46.61.520 and .522.  Practice Tip:  Grab a copy of Roggenkamp for your trial notebook.