Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
June 30, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59812-4-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ANTHONY EDWARD HUFF-MCKAY,
Appellant.
VELJACIC, C.J. — Anthony E. Huff-McKay appeals his convictions for two counts of
unlawful imprisonment, two counts of malicious mischief in the second degree, and one count of
obstructing a law enforcement officer. He contends that insufficient evidence supports his
convictions. We affirm.
FACTS
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
One evening, a large crowd gathered at an intersection in downtown Tacoma for a “street
takeover[]” where drivers spin their vehicles in an intersection while blocking traffic. 2 Rep. of
Proc. (RP) at 487. Traffic was blocked for approximately 15 to 20 minutes before police arrived.
Spectators cheered on the drivers.
Huff-McKay was one of the spectators. As the cars did circles, Huff-McKay stood near
the vehicles and filmed them. When the police arrived, Huff-McKay repeatedly shouted, “Block
the cops!” Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec. He ordered the other spectators 59812-4-II
to “Get the fuck over here! Block the cops! Get the fuck over here! . . . Let’s go! Ey! Ey!” Ex.
55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 34 sec. to 42 sec. The video shows Huff-McKay and the crowd
moving toward and around the police cruiser.
When Tacoma Police Officer Khanh Phan arrived, a group of at least 30 people, including
Huff-McKay, converged on his patrol car. The group quickly surrounded the car with Huff-
McKay pushing toward the front. The crowd began beating on the windows, hood, and sides of
the car while shouting “pigs.” 3 RP at 860. They threw bottles at the vehicle and kicked the doors.
Phan eventually drove his vehicle forward to escape and ran over Huff-McKay who was standing
in front of Phan’s vehicle.
When Tacoma Police Officer Rader Cockle arrived, members of the crowd began pounding
on his patrol car. He heard objects striking the vehicle and his windows cracking amid the crowd’s
screaming and yelling. He observed that Huff-McKay was on the ground, but Cockle was unable
to respond because he believed he would be assaulted if he exited his vehicle. Cockle radioed for
medical assistance. Huff-McKay was taken to the hospital and treated for his injuries.
II. CHARGES
The State charged Huff-McKay with two counts of unlawful imprisonment involving Phan
(count 1) and Cockle (count 2), two counts of malicious mischief in the second degree based on
creating a substantial risk of interruption of service to the public by damaging or tampering with
an emergency vehicle involving Phan (count 3) and Cockle (count 4), and one count of obstructing
law enforcement (count 5). Regarding counts 1 through 4, the State charged Huff-McKay as either
a principal or an accomplice.
2 59812-4-II
III. TRIAL
Phan testified to what happened when he arrived on scene as set forth above. He further
testified that he felt his vehicle rocking back and forth and heard a bottle hit his window. Phan
heard liquid spilling down his window and was concerned the object was a “Molotov cocktail,” a
type of homemade firebomb. 3 RP at 958. Phan was afraid for his safety and felt his life was in
danger. He worried that the mob would pull him out of his vehicle, take his weapons, and injure
him. Phan believed the crowd wanted to cause him either serious injury or death. Huff-McKay
was among the crowd gathered in front of Phan’s vehicle.
Phan testified that he began reversing slowly, but he quickly realized he could not see
behind him as his mirrors were blocked by people surrounding his vehicle. Concerned that backing
up could cause a collision with another car or the officer behind him, leaving them “stuck there”
and giving “the crowd . . . an opportunity to attack both officers,” Phan decided to proceed forward.
3 RP at 961-62.
Phan testified that as he moved forward, some people moved out of the way, but then he
felt a bump and realized he may have hit someone. Phan proceeded through the intersection and
continued up a hill from where the crowd was gathered. Once he was clear of the crowd, Phan
turned around to check for injury. As he was returning, he saw a truck approaching his vehicle at
a high speed and members of the crowd chasing him on foot. At that point, Phan chose to leave
the area for his safety. It was later confirmed that Phan had run over Huff-McKay.
Exhibit 55, which was a video taken on Huff-McKay’s phone, was admitted at trial. It
shows Huff-McKay yelling, “Block the cops,” the crowd responding, and Huff-McKay moving
with the crowd. Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec.
3 59812-4-II
A witness testified that that group acted in “mob fashion” as they began hitting, kicking,
shaking, and yelling at the police. 2 RP at 555. Another witness testified that the crowd
approached the police vehicles like a “wave.” 3 RP at 890. Both witnesses testified that Phan
could not have moved without potentially hitting somebody.
Tacoma Police Officer Chris Bain testified that upon arriving, he observed a large crowd
moving as a single mass around Phan’s vehicle, punching, kicking, and shoving it. Bain drove
away from the intersection and then returned on foot and called for medical aid to respond to Huff-
McKay, who was lying in the road.
Cockle testified that he was a few minutes away when he learned over his radio that Phan’s
patrol car was surrounded and that people were kicking it, so he proceeded to the location. Upon
his arrival, individuals directed obscene gestures at him and yelled at him. The group began
attacking Cockle’s car, screaming “Fuck you. Fuck that cop. Fuck him. Get him. Drag him out.
Kill that cop. Kill him. Pull him out.” 3 RP at 1103. The group then began pulling on the top of
his door frame, like they were trying to bend the window or open the door.
Cockle continued to drive toward Phan, believing he was on “an officer rescue situation.”
3 RP at 1104. As he neared the intersection, Cockle saw a patrol car “go flying up the hill” and
Huff-McKay lying on the ground. 3 RP at 1104. The crowd continued to swarm Cockle’s vehicle,
hitting it and screaming. Cockle testified that he believed he could not leave his vehicle because
he would be assaulted. Since he was prevented from physically going over to Huff-McKay, he
radioed dispatch to tell them there was an individual down who needed medical assistance.
Cockle attempted to leave the area but was unable to do so due to the crowd surrounding
his vehicle and parked cars blocking traffic. He tried to back up but his backup camera just showed
“legs and darkness.” 3 RP at 1107. He was concerned that focusing on his backup camera would
4 59812-4-II
divert his attention from his surroundings, leaving him vulnerable to an unexpected attack. Cockle
felt the “crowd’s goal was to kill [him].” 3 RP at 1108.
Cockle armed himself with his handgun and repeatedly announced over his loudspeaker
that he would use it if the crowd failed to disperse. Despite his warnings, the crowd did not move.
Cockle threatened to hit a vehicle directly in front of him if the crowd did not disperse. At that
point, Cockle heard something hit his back window, shattering it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
June 30, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59812-4-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ANTHONY EDWARD HUFF-MCKAY,
Appellant.
VELJACIC, C.J. — Anthony E. Huff-McKay appeals his convictions for two counts of
unlawful imprisonment, two counts of malicious mischief in the second degree, and one count of
obstructing a law enforcement officer. He contends that insufficient evidence supports his
convictions. We affirm.
FACTS
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
One evening, a large crowd gathered at an intersection in downtown Tacoma for a “street
takeover[]” where drivers spin their vehicles in an intersection while blocking traffic. 2 Rep. of
Proc. (RP) at 487. Traffic was blocked for approximately 15 to 20 minutes before police arrived.
Spectators cheered on the drivers.
Huff-McKay was one of the spectators. As the cars did circles, Huff-McKay stood near
the vehicles and filmed them. When the police arrived, Huff-McKay repeatedly shouted, “Block
the cops!” Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec. He ordered the other spectators 59812-4-II
to “Get the fuck over here! Block the cops! Get the fuck over here! . . . Let’s go! Ey! Ey!” Ex.
55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 34 sec. to 42 sec. The video shows Huff-McKay and the crowd
moving toward and around the police cruiser.
When Tacoma Police Officer Khanh Phan arrived, a group of at least 30 people, including
Huff-McKay, converged on his patrol car. The group quickly surrounded the car with Huff-
McKay pushing toward the front. The crowd began beating on the windows, hood, and sides of
the car while shouting “pigs.” 3 RP at 860. They threw bottles at the vehicle and kicked the doors.
Phan eventually drove his vehicle forward to escape and ran over Huff-McKay who was standing
in front of Phan’s vehicle.
When Tacoma Police Officer Rader Cockle arrived, members of the crowd began pounding
on his patrol car. He heard objects striking the vehicle and his windows cracking amid the crowd’s
screaming and yelling. He observed that Huff-McKay was on the ground, but Cockle was unable
to respond because he believed he would be assaulted if he exited his vehicle. Cockle radioed for
medical assistance. Huff-McKay was taken to the hospital and treated for his injuries.
II. CHARGES
The State charged Huff-McKay with two counts of unlawful imprisonment involving Phan
(count 1) and Cockle (count 2), two counts of malicious mischief in the second degree based on
creating a substantial risk of interruption of service to the public by damaging or tampering with
an emergency vehicle involving Phan (count 3) and Cockle (count 4), and one count of obstructing
law enforcement (count 5). Regarding counts 1 through 4, the State charged Huff-McKay as either
a principal or an accomplice.
2 59812-4-II
III. TRIAL
Phan testified to what happened when he arrived on scene as set forth above. He further
testified that he felt his vehicle rocking back and forth and heard a bottle hit his window. Phan
heard liquid spilling down his window and was concerned the object was a “Molotov cocktail,” a
type of homemade firebomb. 3 RP at 958. Phan was afraid for his safety and felt his life was in
danger. He worried that the mob would pull him out of his vehicle, take his weapons, and injure
him. Phan believed the crowd wanted to cause him either serious injury or death. Huff-McKay
was among the crowd gathered in front of Phan’s vehicle.
Phan testified that he began reversing slowly, but he quickly realized he could not see
behind him as his mirrors were blocked by people surrounding his vehicle. Concerned that backing
up could cause a collision with another car or the officer behind him, leaving them “stuck there”
and giving “the crowd . . . an opportunity to attack both officers,” Phan decided to proceed forward.
3 RP at 961-62.
Phan testified that as he moved forward, some people moved out of the way, but then he
felt a bump and realized he may have hit someone. Phan proceeded through the intersection and
continued up a hill from where the crowd was gathered. Once he was clear of the crowd, Phan
turned around to check for injury. As he was returning, he saw a truck approaching his vehicle at
a high speed and members of the crowd chasing him on foot. At that point, Phan chose to leave
the area for his safety. It was later confirmed that Phan had run over Huff-McKay.
Exhibit 55, which was a video taken on Huff-McKay’s phone, was admitted at trial. It
shows Huff-McKay yelling, “Block the cops,” the crowd responding, and Huff-McKay moving
with the crowd. Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec.
3 59812-4-II
A witness testified that that group acted in “mob fashion” as they began hitting, kicking,
shaking, and yelling at the police. 2 RP at 555. Another witness testified that the crowd
approached the police vehicles like a “wave.” 3 RP at 890. Both witnesses testified that Phan
could not have moved without potentially hitting somebody.
Tacoma Police Officer Chris Bain testified that upon arriving, he observed a large crowd
moving as a single mass around Phan’s vehicle, punching, kicking, and shoving it. Bain drove
away from the intersection and then returned on foot and called for medical aid to respond to Huff-
McKay, who was lying in the road.
Cockle testified that he was a few minutes away when he learned over his radio that Phan’s
patrol car was surrounded and that people were kicking it, so he proceeded to the location. Upon
his arrival, individuals directed obscene gestures at him and yelled at him. The group began
attacking Cockle’s car, screaming “Fuck you. Fuck that cop. Fuck him. Get him. Drag him out.
Kill that cop. Kill him. Pull him out.” 3 RP at 1103. The group then began pulling on the top of
his door frame, like they were trying to bend the window or open the door.
Cockle continued to drive toward Phan, believing he was on “an officer rescue situation.”
3 RP at 1104. As he neared the intersection, Cockle saw a patrol car “go flying up the hill” and
Huff-McKay lying on the ground. 3 RP at 1104. The crowd continued to swarm Cockle’s vehicle,
hitting it and screaming. Cockle testified that he believed he could not leave his vehicle because
he would be assaulted. Since he was prevented from physically going over to Huff-McKay, he
radioed dispatch to tell them there was an individual down who needed medical assistance.
Cockle attempted to leave the area but was unable to do so due to the crowd surrounding
his vehicle and parked cars blocking traffic. He tried to back up but his backup camera just showed
“legs and darkness.” 3 RP at 1107. He was concerned that focusing on his backup camera would
4 59812-4-II
divert his attention from his surroundings, leaving him vulnerable to an unexpected attack. Cockle
felt the “crowd’s goal was to kill [him].” 3 RP at 1108.
Cockle armed himself with his handgun and repeatedly announced over his loudspeaker
that he would use it if the crowd failed to disperse. Despite his warnings, the crowd did not move.
Cockle threatened to hit a vehicle directly in front of him if the crowd did not disperse. At that
point, Cockle heard something hit his back window, shattering it. The vehicle in front of him
eventually backed up enough that Cockle was able to escape.
Both Phan’s and Cockle’s patrol vehicles were significantly damaged. The damage to
Phan’s driver’s side door made it difficult to open the door. And Cockle’s rear window was
shattered with his rifle exposed. One of the metal bars preventing access to the inside of the vehicle
was bent, and footprints were discovered on the back of Cockle’s vehicle. Additionally, the rear
driver’s side passenger window was pulled down off its track. Both vehicles had to be taken out
of service due to the damage.
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS
After the State rested and Huff-McKay elected not to present evidence, Huff-McKay
moved to dismiss one count of unlawful imprisonment and the two counts of malicious mischief
in the second degree based on insufficient evidence to support the charges. The trial court denied
the motion.
The trial court instructed the jury on accomplice liability. The accomplice jury instruction
stated:
A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he or she is legally accountable. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when he or she is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime. A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either:
5 59812-4-II
(1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime.
Clerk’s Papers at 71.
V. VERDICT AND MOTION TO ARREST JUDGMENT
The jury found Huff-McKay guilty as charged. Huff-McKay filed a motion to arrest
judgment, arguing that the State provided insufficient evidence to support Huff-McKay’s
convictions. The trial court denied his motion.
Huff McKay appeals.
ANALYSIS
Huff-McKay contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of unlawful
imprisonment, malicious mischief, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. We disagree.
“In a criminal prosecution, due process requires the State to prove every element of the
charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Smith, 155 Wn.2d 496, 502, 120 P.3d 559
(2005). Whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is a question of constitutional
law reviewed de novo. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016).
Evidence to support a conviction is sufficient if, when viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Bergstrom, 199 Wn.2d 23, 40-41, 502 P.3d 837 (2022). In arguing that the evidence is
insufficient, the defendant admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all reasonable inferences
drawn from that evidence. Id. at 41. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are considered
equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). “Appellate courts
defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the
persuasiveness of the evidence.” State v. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d 222, 234, 572 P.3d 1191 (2025).
6 59812-4-II
I. UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT
Huff-McKay contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he restrained another
individual. We disagree.
Under RCW 9A.40.040(1), “[a] person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she
knowingly restrains another person.” Restrain means to “restrict a person’s movements without
consent and without legal authority in a manner which interferes substantially with his or her
liberty.” RCW 9A.40.010(6). “Interferes substantially” means an interference that is more than
“‘a petty annoyance, a slight inconvenience, or an imaginary conflict.’” State v. Dillon, 12 Wn.
App. 2d 133, 144, 456 P.3d 1199 (2020) (quoting State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42, 50, 143
P.3d 606 (2006)).
Huff-McKay was charged as either a principal or an accomplice to unlawful imprisonment
and the jury was instructed accordingly. Under RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a)(i) and (ii),
A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if: (a) With knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she: (i) Solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit [the crime or the crime]; or (ii) Aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing [the crime].
A. Officer Phan (Count 1)
Sufficient evidence supports Huff-McKay’s conviction for unlawful imprisonment of
Phan. When Phan arrived, a group of at least 30 people, including Huff-McKay, converged on
and surrounded his patrol car, preventing movement. The crowd then beat on the car’s windows,
hood, sides, kicked the doors, and threw bottles. Phan testified that he could not see behind him
because people were blocking his mirrors, making it unsafe to reverse. These facts show that
Phan’s movement was physically restricted.
7 59812-4-II
The interference was significant. Witnesses described the crowd acting in “mob fashion”
and approaching like a “wave.” 2 RP at 555; 3 RP at 890. Phan testified he feared for his life,
believing the crowd might pull him from the car, take his weapons, and seriously injure or kill
him. He was effectively trapped until he drove forward to escape, despite the risk of hitting
someone. This is far more than a slight inconvenience.
Huff-McKay did not merely stand by—he actively encouraged and directed the restraint,
repeatedly shouting, “Block the cops!” and ordering others to gather and obstruct. Ex. 55
(20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec. He also joined the group that surrounded Phan’s
vehicle. From this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that Huff-McKay knowingly promoted
or facilitated the restraint by encouraging and participating in the conduct that physically prevented
Phan’s movement.
B. Officer Cockle (Count 2)
Sufficient evidence also supports unlawful imprisonment of Cockle. Upon arrival, Cockle
was likewise surrounded by the crowd, who pounded on his patrol car and prevented him from
exiting or moving freely. He testified he could not get out of the vehicle because he believed he
would be assaulted, and he was unable to leave due to the crowd and blocked traffic. When
attempting to reverse, his camera showed only “legs and darkness,” confirming people were
physically obstructing his path. 3 RP at 1107.
Additionally, the interference was severe. The crowd shouted threats such as “Kill that
cop” and attempted to break into the vehicle, while continuing to strike it even shattering a window.
3 RP at 1103. Cockle testified he feared the crowd’s goal was to kill him. He remained trapped
until he threatened to ram a vehicle and ultimately forced a path to escape. This constitutes a
substantial interference with liberty.
8 59812-4-II
Even if Huff-McKay was not physically surrounding Cockle, the jury could find
accomplice liability. Huff-McKay initiated and encouraged the collective effort to “block the
cops,” which resulted in officers—including Cockle—being surrounded and immobilized. Ex. 55
(20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec. The crowd quickly responded to Huff-McKay’s
direction, surrounding the vehicle in only a few seconds. The crowd acted as a coordinated group
in a continuous course of conduct against responding officers. From this, a jury could infer Huff-
McKay knew his encouragement would promote or facilitate restraining officers, including
subsequently arriving officers like Cockle.
For both officers, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence
shows (1) physical obstruction of movement, (2) lack of consent or legal authority, and (3)
substantial interference with liberty under dangerous, mob-like conditions. Additionally, Huff-
McKay’s active encouragement and participation support liability as either a principal or an
accomplice. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could find unlawful imprisonment beyond a
reasonable doubt as to both counts.
II. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Huff-McKay contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he physically damaged
an emergency vehicle. We disagree.
Under RCW 9A.48.080(1)(b), a person is guilty of malicious mischief in the second degree
if they create “a substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public, by
physically damaging or tampering with an emergency vehicle.” Like the unlawful imprisonment
charges, Huff-McKay was charged as either a principal or an accomplice and the jury was
instructed accordingly.
A. Officer Phan (Count 3)
9 59812-4-II
Huff-McKay ordered the crowd to “Block the cops” and the crowd then began moving
together. Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec. A large group, including Huff-
McKay, converged on and surrounded Phan’s patrol car, then began “beating on the windows,
hood, and sides,” throwing bottles, and kicking the doors. 3 RP at 906. Bain likewise observed
the crowd “punching and kicking and shoving” the vehicle as a single mass. 3 RP at 999. The
crowd’s actions rendered Phan unable to safely operate his patrol vehicle. His mirrors were
obstructed by people surrounding the car, preventing him from backing up. He feared that
remaining in place would allow the crowd to extract him and seize his weapons. As a result, Phan
was forced to abandon normal police operations and instead drove forward through the crowd to
escape. This created a substantial risk of interrupting police services and, in effect, did interrupt
his ability to respond to the incident. Additionally, the damage to the vehicle—particularly to the
driver’s side door—further impaired its function. Ultimately, the vehicle was taken out of service.
B. Officer Cockle (Count 4)
When Cockle arrived, the crowd again attacked a patrol vehicle, pounding on it and striking
it with objects. Individuals also pulled on the top of the door frame as if trying to bend it or open
the door. The attack escalated when an object struck and shattered the rear window. The vehicle
sustained significant additional damage, including bent structural components and windows pulled
off track. Cockle responded believing he was entering an officer rescue situation, but the crowd’s
conduct prevented him from performing that function. Because the crowd surrounded and attacked
his vehicle, Cockle could not safely exit to render aid to Huff-McKay and instead had to radio for
medical assistance. He was also unable to maneuver his vehicle due to the crowd and obstructed
visibility. This evidence shows not just a risk, but an actual impairment of emergency services.
10 59812-4-II
Further, the damage ultimately rendered the patrol vehicle inoperable and it was taken out of
service.
Huff-McKay’s earlier directives to “block the cops,” combined with his participation in the
crowd, support the reasonable inference that he knowingly engaged in conduct designed to
interfere with police operations whether as a principle or an accomplice. Ex. 55
(20210123_182707.mp4), at 21 sec. to 31 sec.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that Huff-
McKay, at minimum as an accomplice, participated in physically damaging or tampering with
emergency vehicles in a manner that created a substantial risk, and actual impairment, of public
safety services. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could find malicious mischief in the second
degree beyond a reasonable doubt as to both counts.
III. OBSTRUCTING LAW ENFORCEMENT (COUNT 5)
Huff-McKay contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he engaged in any
conduct that obstructed the police. We disagree.
Under RCW 9A.76.020(1), a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer “if
the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of
his or her official powers or duties.”
Here, Huff-McKay repeatedly shouted, “Block the cops!” and directed others, “Get the
fuck over here! . . . Let’s go!” Ex. 55 (20210123_182707.mp4), at 34 sec. to 42 sec. Huff-McKay,
along with a large group, converged on Phan’s patrol car. He then pushed his way to the front of
the crowd and stood in front of Phan’s vehicle. This supports coordinated action that physically
impeded an officer.
11 59812-4-II
Viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Huff-McKay willfully
hindered, delayed, or obstructed a law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official
powers or duties. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could find Huff-McKay obstructed a law
enforcement officer beyond a reasonable doubt.1
CONCLUSION
Because sufficient evidence supports Huff-McKay’s convictions for two counts of
unlawful imprisonment, two counts of malicious mischief in the second degree, and one count of
obstructing a law enforcement officer, we affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Veljacic, C.J.
We concur:
Glasgow, J.
Cruser, J.
1 Huff-McKay also argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove he obstructed a law enforcement officer based on accomplice liability. Because we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support this conviction based on Huff-McKay acting as a principle, we decline to address this issue further.