EPHRATA - An appeals court upheld the conviction of a Soap Lake man for stabbing his roommate outside of their mobile home in May 2010.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, rejected David G. Rice's argument stating a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement should be dropped because his attorneys felt the jury received incorrect instructions. The enhancement added two years to Rice's 12-year sentence for first-degree assault.

The stabbing followed a deteriorating relationship between Rice and the victim, Duane Heaps, Prosecutor Angus Lee said at Rice's trial. Heaps moved into the trailer Rice shared with Heaps' mother-in-law. Issues between the men worsened, leading to several argument and Heaps calling Rice a pedophile.

Shortly before the stabbing, Rice was playing with Heaps' child and he became upset at Rice when he found the two together, Lee said. When Heaps told Rice to stop playing with his son, Rice walked into the kitchen and grabbed a knife. After leaving the kitchen, Rice left the trailer and went to a neighbor's house.

Heaps saw Rice enter another house where Heaps' child was playing. The victim became concerned and went to the neighbor's house, Lee said. When he arrived, he found Rice with his daughter sitting on Rice's lap.

An argument started, and Heaps told his daughter to go back to the house and he chastised Rice, and he told Rice he wasn't going to live at their house anymore, Lee said. When Heaps returned to the trailer, he told another resident to lock the door after him, and Heaps went outside to wait for Rice.

"The defendant, Mr. Rice, returns to the home, walks up the porch," Lee said. "The defendant attempts to open up the door, but it's locked ... The defendant looks at Duane and says, 'You think you're cute. You think you're funny.' Heaps saw a quick movement. That quick movement was the defendant pulling that knife, a long, serrated blade and jabbing it."

Heaps had his arms protecting his chest, and the knife went through his forearm. The victim fell over the railing, and Rice reportedly thrust the knife at him again, Lee said. When Heaps landed on his back, he allegedly saw Rice holding a bloody knife. Heaps and a witness allegedly heard Rice yell, 'I'm going to kill you."

"He chases after him. He runs down the stairs and chases after him with that bloody knife, screaming, 'I'm going to kill you,'" Lee said. "Duane gets up and runs away. He can't stay away for very long because after he's outrun the defendant he realizes that he's now left his daughter in that home."

Lee described what followed as a game of cat-and-mouse, where Heaps allegedly ran back to the trailer and was chased away by Rice.

After police arrived, Rice allegedly admitted to stabbing Heaps, Lee said. Rice reportedly told an Ephrata police officer and a Grant County sheriff's deputy he intended to kill Heaps.

When the judge gave the jury instructions before they started deliberations, he stated all of the jurors needed to agree to whether or not a deadly weapon was used during the crime, according to court records.

The jury found Rice guilty of first- and second-degree assault along with a deadly weapon enhancement, according to court records. Grant County Superior Court Judge Evan Sperline sentenced Rice to 12 years in prison. The sentenced included two years for using a deadly weapon.

Rice's attorney argued the judge made a mistake when he stated the jury needed to be unanimous if it chose to acquit Rice of the deadly weapon enhancement, according to appeals court decision.

The judges pointed out Rice's attorney didn't object to the instruction during the trial, and usually means the issue can't be raised during the appeal, according to the court. While the state Supreme Court ruled in 2010 the jury did not need to be unanimous to acquit someone of an enhancement, they reversed their position in a 2012 case. The supreme court stated allowing the jury to be split was contrary to the law, and created confusion.

"The (Supreme) Court concluded that the challenged jury instructions, which required a unanimous 'yes' or 'no' decision on the special verdict form, were correct," according to the appeals court decision. "Here, based on (the 2012 decision), the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the special verdict form. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Rice's sentence."