Court proceedings focused on jury instructions, arguments, and verdicts in the case of State of Washington vs. Kurt Benshoof.
1. Jury Instructions and Supplemental Instructions
•    The court discussed the importance of jury instructions, emphasizing that they are the sole authority of law for jurors and must be read and applied as a complete set.
•    Supplemental instructions were introduced, including instructions 2A, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, and 18E, which addressed topics such as the defendant's right not to testify, the definition of substantial steps, and aggravating circumstances for stalking charges.
•    The court clarified that supplemental instructions are equally important as the original instructions and must be inserted into the jury packet in the specified order.
•    The judge emphasized that deliberations must be based solely on the instructions provided and that jurors should not consider external laws or comments not included in the jury packet.
2. Constitutionally Protected Activity and Lawful Authority
•    Defense attorney Robert Barnes argued that constitutionally protected activities cannot be part of the course of conduct for criminal harassment, citing specific statutes and legal definitions.
•    The court ruled that arguments about constitutionally protected activities as lawful authority were not appropriate for closing arguments, as they were not included in the jury instructions.
•    The judge clarified that the jury must base its decision solely on the instructions provided and cannot consider external legal principles or comments from statutes not codified in the jury instructions.
3. Evidence and Burden of Proof
•    The prosecution, led by Kelton Jenkins, presented evidence of repeated harassment and stalking by the defendant, including text messages, voicemails, Discord chats, and physical visits to the victim's residence.
•    The prosecution argued that the defendant's actions were intentional, systemic, and designed to instill fear in the victims, Jessica Rae Owen and Ms. Lerman, over a prolonged period.
•    The defense countered by highlighting the lack of evidence for bodily injury, physical harm, or surveillance, arguing that the defendant's actions were motivated by legitimate purposes, such as concern for his son and attempts to retrieve his car and house.
•    The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution and that jurors can consider both the evidence presented and the lack of evidence as grounds for reasonable doubt.
4. Closing Arguments and Rebuttal
•    The prosecution's closing argument focused on the defendant's repeated violations of restraining orders, intentional harassment, and the victims' reasonable fear for their safety, emphasizing the systemic nature of the abuse.
•    The defense argued that the defendant's actions were driven by legitimate purposes, such as protecting his son and retrieving his property, and did not meet the legal definitions of stalking or harassment.
•    The prosecution's rebuttal emphasized that contacting Ms. Owen to reach his son was not a lawful purpose, as the defendant was prohibited from contacting both Ms. Owen and his son due to prior court rulings.
•    The prosecution clarified that physical assault or bodily injury is not required for stalking charges, as the legal standard focuses on placing the victim in reasonable fear of injury.
5. Verdict and Polling of Jurors
•    The jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding the defendant, Kurt Benshoof, guilty of stalking (count one) and harassment (count two).
•    Special verdict forms confirmed that the crime of stalking was an aggravated domestic violence offense and that the defendant and victim were intimate partners at the time of the crime.
•    The court individually polled each juror to confirm the unanimity of the verdict and thanked them for their service, emphasizing the importance of their role in the justice system.
6. Sentencing and Next Steps
•    The court discussed scheduling a sentencing date, ensuring compliance with the standard two-week notification period for the victim.
•    The prosecution requested that the sentencing be placed on the community calendar, and the defense raised no objections.
•    The judge confirmed that the sentencing process would proceed as per standard procedures and thanked all parties for their contributions to the case.
Next steps
1.    Notify the victim about the sentencing date within two weeks: Ms. Sally
2.    Schedule the sentencing date on the community calendar: Court Clerk
3.    Confirm the next domestic violence (DV) sentencing date: Court Clerk