WA Supreme Court: Making no new law on whether the substance need be identified in jury instructions and specifically found by the jury
Sibert was convicted of a couple meth charges, as meth dealers tend to be. He argued the State had to provide an instruction specifically stating the substance. However, the instructions incorporated the information by reference, which did state the substance. Thus, when the state says it must prove each element of the crime as charged, the to convict instruction referencing the information is enough. In addition, the State actually did prove the identity of the substance.
The court also held that prior convictions used in sentencing need not be proven to the jury under Blakely, the court simply stated it was meritless.
More importantly though, the fifth vote on the majority was result only. Which means that no new law was made here, given three votes for Justice Alexander's dissent, and one for Justice Sanders'.