The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the State need only prove that a defendant knowingly possessed the unlawful firearm. State v. Williams, 125 Wn. App. 335, 340-41, ΒΆ 15, 103 P.3d 1289 (2005). ANALYSIS
September 7, 2005. Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 30820-7-II, January 11, 2005, 125 Wn. App. 335. Granted.
In order for the jury to convict Trent of unlawful possession of a firearm, the jury needed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he: (1) knowingly; (2) had a firearm in his possession or control; and (3) had previously been convicted of a serious offense. RCW 9.41.040(1)(a); see State v. Williams, 125 Wn. App. 335, 103 P.3d 1289 (2005), aff'd, 158 Wn.2d 904 (2006); see also 11A Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 133.02, at 231-33 (Supp. 2005). Consequently, the validity of Trent's conviction rests on whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trent had a firearm in his possession or control.
Although a defendant need not know that the firearm is illegal, he or she must knowingly possess or control the firearm. Warfield, 119 Wn. App. at 883; see also State v. Williams, 125 Wn. App. 335, 103 P.3d 1289, 1291 (2005). When the defendant has not been adequately apprised of the knowledge element, the remedy is dismissal without prejudice.