Judges press counsel on what facts would meet accomplice-liability standard

Throughout Monday's argument the panel pressed both sides on the precise factual thresholds that would satisfy Washington law for accomplice liability. The court repeatedly asked defense counsel what additional conduct would have been enough—suggesting examples such as handing a gun or being three feet rather than 15 feet from a shooter—and asked the state to explain how the record here met those thresholds.

The exchanges centered on two legal points: (1) the requirement of actual knowledge that the principal would commit the charged offense, and (2) the requirement that any assistance occur before the crime was completed. Defense counsel said closer proximity or handing a weapon could be dispositive; the state pointed to the broader pattern of conduct (Oregon incident, video behavior, and witness testimony) and urged the court to draw reasonable inferences in the state's favor. The panel concluded argument by taking the matter under advisement.