## Facts

- Ali Elmi argued by telephone with his estranged wife, Fadumo Aden, about renewing car tags.
- Later that evening, Aden sat in her mother’s living room with three children: her and Elmi’s three-year-old child and Aden’s siblings, ages three and five.
- After hearing arguing outside, Aden looked out the window briefly, then sat with the children watching television.
- Seconds later, multiple gunshots were fired through the living room window into the occupied room.
- Aden moved the children to the kitchen and called 911; the recording captured children screaming and a child saying someone was going to kill “mommy.”
- Police found shell casings near the window and bullet holes in the window and items inside the home; forensic testing later linked the casings to a handgun recovered from a car associated with Elmi.
- No one in the living room was physically injured.
- At trial, Aden testified she could not identify the shooter and said she named Elmi during the 911 call because he was the first person who came to mind; the children did not testify.
- The jury convicted Elmi of attempted murder of Aden and four counts of first-degree assault with a firearm enhancement (for Aden and each child), after receiving a transferred-intent instruction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the assault convictions related to the children; the Washington Supreme Court granted review limited to transferred intent under the first-degree assault statute.

## Issues

1. Under RCW 9A.36.011, may intent to inflict great bodily harm be applied to unintended victims who were not physically injured when a defendant fires into an occupied area?
2. Does first-degree assault require the State to prove a separate, victim-specific intent to inflict great bodily harm for each named victim?
3. Was a transferred-intent jury instruction consistent with the statutory elements of first-degree assault in a multi-occupant shooting with no injuries?

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld Elmi’s first-degree assault convictions involving the children.
- The court held that RCW 9A.36.011 does not require that intent to inflict great bodily harm correspond to a particular victim.
- Once the State proves the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm and an assault with a firearm or other deadly weapon, that intent applies to unintended victims within the scope of the assaultive conduct, even if uninjured.
- The court approved the transferred-intent instruction as a correct statement of law for first-degree assault under the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 9A.36.011, first-degree assault requires proof that a defendant, with intent to inflict great bodily harm, assaults another with a firearm or other deadly weapon.
- The statute is not read to require individualized proof that the defendant intended to inflict great bodily harm on each named victim.
- When a defendant intentionally commits an assaultive act with a deadly weapon directed into an occupied area, the requisite intent to inflict great bodily harm may be applied to all persons placed at risk by that act, including unintended and uninjured occupants.
- Physical injury is not a required element of assault for purposes of first-degree assault when the assault is established by conduct creating a substantial risk of harm (such as firing into an occupied room).

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court interpreted RCW 9A.36.011 to permit first-degree assault convictions for multiple occupants when a defendant, intending great bodily harm, fires into an occupied space, because the statute does not require victim-specific intent and allows that intent to extend to unintended, uninjured victims within the scope of the assault.


State v. Elmi, 166 Wash. 2d 209, 207 P.3d 439 (Wash. 2009)