State v. Schaler, 169 Wn.2d 274, 282, 236 P.3d 858(2010)(citing Statev. Grande,164 Wn.2d 135, 140, 187 P.3d 248 (2008); State v. Brett,126 Wn.2d136, 171, 892 P.2d 29 (1995)).
Id.(quoting State v. Kilburn,151 Wn.2d 36, 49-50, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004)(quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.,466 U.S. 485,508, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984))).
Id.at 283 (quoting Virginia v. Black,538 U.S. 343, 358, 123 S.Ct. 1536,155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003)).insanity defense. Moreover, he did not testify. But he argued,based on hismental healthstatus,that a reasonable person would not have consideredhisstatements to be true threats. The jury convicted Ballew as charged.The trial court sentenced Ballew to nine months confinement. With creditfor time served, he was released.Ballew appeals.
For the first time on appeal, Ballewarguesthat the trial court violatedhisFirst Amendment rightsby incorrectly defining“true threat”in the jury instruction.Wedisagree.Instructional errors based on legal rulings are reviewed de novo, as areconstitutional questions.
Weengage in an independent review of the record inFirst Amendment cases to ensurethat the judgment isnot based on a forbiddenintrusion on the field of free expression.
The First Amendment, which is applicable to the states through theFourteenth Amendment, statesthat “Congress shall make no law . . . abridgingthe freedom of speech.”
While the First Amendment’s scopeis broad, it does3