## Facts

- On December 22, 1978, Raymond Arthur Jimerson, Jr. drove with friends when his car spun on ice and snow near two off-duty police officers walking to a Christmas party.
- The officers approached to tell Jimerson to drive more carefully.
- Jimerson and his companions responded with insults; Jimerson began to get out of the car, appearing ready to fight.
- The officers identified themselves as police and forced Jimerson back into the car, including by pushing him and possibly grabbing his hair; Jimerson then drove away.
- Shortly thereafter, Jimerson turned around, accelerated rapidly, and drove toward the officers from the other side of the street.
- The officers attempted to avoid the car by climbing an embankment.
- One officer drew his service revolver and fired at the oncoming car, putting a hole in a door; no one in the car was hit.
- The car swerved toward the officers but missed them.
- Jimerson later went home, and he and his wife called police to report the incident; an investigation followed and Jimerson was arrested.
- At trial, Jimerson testified he did not intend to hit the officers; he claimed he intended only to drive by and splash them with slush.
- The State charged Jimerson with first-degree assault, and the jury was instructed on first-degree assault and a lesser included offense of second-degree assault.
- The trial court refused Jimerson’s request for an instruction on simple assault.
- The jury convicted Jimerson of two counts of second-degree assault, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Was Jimerson entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault where the evidence (including his testimony about intent) could support conviction on the lesser offense and acquittal on the greater?
2. Did the trial court err by limiting defense cross-examination of the officers about their understanding of the legal elements of assault?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed Jimerson’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because the jury should have been instructed on simple assault as a lesser included offense.
- The court held the trial judge’s refusal to give the simple-assault instruction was reversible error under Washington’s lesser-included-offense rule.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting cross-examination about the officers’ understanding of assault’s legal elements.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction if: (1) each element of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the charged offense, and (2) the evidence supports an inference that only the lesser crime was committed.
- For the evidentiary requirement, the question is whether the evidence would allow a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense while finding the State failed to prove an element distinguishing the greater offense.
- When deciding whether a lesser-offense instruction is warranted, the court does not decide which witnesses to believe; the jury assesses credibility and chooses among competing inferences.
- In Washington, “assault” is generally treated as an attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury on another, coupled with apparent present ability to carry out the attempt if not prevented.
- Trial courts may limit cross-examination that does not materially bear on disputed facts or a witness’s credibility; a witness’s ability to state technical legal elements may be excluded as irrelevant.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because Jimerson’s testimony that he meant only to splash the officers with slush provided a basis for the jury to find simple assault rather than second-degree assault, making a lesser-included instruction required; the trial judge’s restriction on cross-examination about the officers’ legal understanding of assault was upheld as a permissible control of relevance and trial management.


State v. Jimerson, 618 P.2d 1027 (1980)