State argues error in Washington

2024While the State argues that the rule only applies to challenges made against BIPOC jurors, this court will not “insert words into a [rule] where the language, taken as a whole, is clear and unambiguous.” Watson, 146 Wn.2d at 955 .

2024While the State argues that the rule only applies to challenges made against BIPOC jurors, this court will not “insert words into a [rule] where the language, taken as a whole, is clear and unambiguous.” Watson, 146 Wn.2d at 955 .

2009The test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

2009The test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

2008Sullivan, 60 Wn.2d at 220 . ¶31 Finally, the State argues that the defense waived any claim of error by Mr. White’s election to continue as Ms. Vasiliades’ second chair.

2008Sullivan, 60 Wash.2d at 220 , 373 P.2d 474 . ¶ 31 Finally, the State argues that the defense waived any claim of error by Mr. White's election to continue as Ms. Vasiliades' second chair.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶ 14 As the Washington Supreme court held in Brown, 147 Wash.2d at 338 , 58 P.3d 889 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wash.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶14 As the Washington Supreme Court held in Brown, 147 Wn.2d at 338 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007Smith, 131 Wash.2d at 263 , 930 P.2d 917 . ¶ 13 The State argues that the instruction was nevertheless acceptable because it did not relieve the State of the burden of showing that Williams acted with knowledge that his actions would facilitate the specific crime charged.

2007Smith, 131 Wn.2d at 263 . ¶13 The State argues that the instruction was nevertheless acceptable because it did not relieve the State of the burden of showing that Williams acted with knowledge that his actions would facilitate the specific crime charged.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶ 14 As the Washington Supreme court held in Brown, 147 Wash.2d at 338 , 58 P.3d 889 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wash.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶14 As the Washington Supreme Court held in Brown, 147 Wn.2d at 338 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶ 14 As the Washington Supreme court held in Brown, 147 Wash.2d at 338 , 58 P.3d 889 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wash.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶14 As the Washington Supreme Court held in Brown, 147 Wn.2d at 338 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶ 14 As the Washington Supreme court held in Brown, 147 Wash.2d at 338 , 58 P.3d 889 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wash.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶14 As the Washington Supreme Court held in Brown, 147 Wn.2d at 338 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶ 14 As the Washington Supreme court held in Brown, 147 Wash.2d at 338 , 58 P.3d 889 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wash.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2007This argument is unavailing. ¶14 As the Washington Supreme Court held in Brown, 147 Wn.2d at 338 , State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 579-80 , 14 P.3d 752 (2000), and State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 513 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000), a trial court errs if it proffers a jury instruction that misstates the knowledge element of accomplice liability.

2004The State relies on State v. Jorden, 103 Wn.

2004The State relies on State v. Jorden, 103 Wash.App. 221 , 11 P.3d 866 (2000), where we upheld the trial court's dismissal of a juror without holding a hearing.

2001State v. McDonald, 138 Wash.2d 680 , 981 P.2d 443 (1999).

2001State v. McDonald, 138 Wn.2d 680 , 981 P.2d 443 (1999).

2001State v. McDonald, 138 Wash.2d 680 , 981 P.2d 443 (1999).

2001State v. McDonald, 138 Wn.2d 680 , 981 P.2d 443 (1999).

2001The State argues that instruction 18 was legally correct, citing Nagel v. Department of Labor & Industries, 189 Wash. 631, 636-37 , 66 P.2d 318 (1937).

2001The State argues that instruction 18 was legally correct, citing Nagel v. Department of Labor & Industries, 189 Wash. 631, 636-37 , 66 P.2d 318 (1937).

1996The doctrine of invited error "prohibits a party from setting up an error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal.” State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511 , 680 P.2d 762 (1984).

1996The doctrine of invited error "prohibits a party from setting up an error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal.” State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511 , 680 P.2d 762 (1984).

2026However, several of the cited cases are unpublished and are 7 No. 87046-7-I/8 “A conviction beset by this error will not be upheld unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Coleman, 159 Wn.2d 509, 512 , 150 P.3d 1126 (2007).

2026The State argues that the error “would not have been obvious to the trial court because the defendant sought and received specific language in the ‘to convict’ instructions requiring that the jury rely on separate and distinct acts for each charge with more than one transaction on a specific date.” However, given that the State presented evidence of multiple acts that could have supported each count, the error is “so obvious on the record that [it] warrants appellate review.”1 See O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 99-100 . 1 The State cites to cases where a court has declined to consider unanimity errors r

2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel.” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 32 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011).

2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel.” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 32 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011).

2026However, several of the cited cases are unpublished and are 7 No. 87046-7-I/8 “A conviction beset by this error will not be upheld unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Coleman, 159 Wn.2d 509, 512 , 150 P.3d 1126 (2007).

2020App. 251, 256 , 352 P.3d 856 (2015). 10 No. 78678-4-I/11 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor’s conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced the appellant by reviewing the challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 18 It is misconduct for a prosecutor to express their “personal belief as to the veracity of the witness” or the “credibility of a witness.” 19 “Whether a witness has testified truthfully is entirely for the jury to determine.” 20 But, “a prosecutor is allowed to comment on a defendant’s failure to support her own factual theories.” 21 The State argues th

2019The State argues no violation occurred, and, assuming any violation, the violation was de minimis under State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577 , ___ P.3d ___ (2018).

2017The State argues the exception to the merger doctrine for acts with an "independent purpose or effect" applies.11 Under the exception,"offenses may in fact be separate when there is a separate injury to 'the person or property of the victim or others, which is separate and distinct from and not merely incidental to the crime of which it forms an element.'" Freeman, 153 Wn.2d at 778 -79 (quoting State v. Frohs, 83 Wn.

2017App. 803, 807 , 924 P.2d 384 (1996)).

2017The State argues the exception to the merger doctrine for acts with an "independent purpose or effect" applies.11 Under the exception,"offenses may in fact be separate when there is a separate injury to 'the person or property of the victim or others, which is separate and distinct from and not merely incidental to the crime of which it forms an element.'" Freeman, 153 Wn.2d at 778 -79 (quoting State v. Frohs, 83 Wn.

2017"An erroneous instruction given on behalf of the party in whose favor the verdict was returned is presumed prejudicial unless it affirmatively appears that the error was harmless." Jain, 151 Wn.

2015The State argues that no violation of his public trial right occurred because members ofthe public still had access to the courthouse for purposes of watching court hearings going past 4:00 p.m. when the courthouse officially closed. }State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 11 No. 30411-6-III State v. Arredondo The State also contends that Mr. Arredondo's failure to raise this issue in the trial court precludes him from raising it on appeal.

2015The State argues that no violation of his public trial right occurred because members ofthe public still had access to the courthouse for purposes of watching court hearings going past 4:00 p.m. when the courthouse officially closed. }State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 11 No. 30411-6-III State v. Arredondo The State also contends that Mr. Arredondo's failure to raise this issue in the trial court precludes him from raising it on appeal.

2015However, “[defendants can raise claims of public trial rights violations for the first time on appeal.” State v. Andy, 182 Wn.2d 294, 301 , 340 P.3d 840 (2014).

2015However, “[defendants can raise claims of public trial rights violations for the first time on appeal.” State v. Andy, 182 Wn.2d 294, 301 , 340 P.3d 840 (2014).

2015State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151 , 157 -59, 822 P. 2d 775 ( 1992).

2015State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151 , 157 -59, 822 P. 2d 775 ( 1992).