inferior degree offense instruction in Washington

2025A defendant who requests an inferior degree offense instruction is entitled to it if “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense ‘proscribe but one offense’; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 453 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)).

2019State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). “[W]hen substantial evidence in the record supports a rational inference that the defendant committed only the lesser included or inferior degree offense to the exclusion of the greater offense, the factual component of the test for entitlement to an inferior degree offense instruction is satisfied.” Id. at 461 .

2026State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997) (quoting State v. Foster, 91 Wn.2d 466, 472 , 589 P.2d 789 (1979)). “[W]hen substantial evidence in the record supports a rational inference that the defendant committed only the lesser included or inferior degree offense to the exclusion of the greater offense, the factual component of the test for entitlement to an inferior degree offense instruction is satisfied.” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 462 .

2025A defendant who requests an inferior degree offense instruction is entitled to it if “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense ‘proscribe but one offense’; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 453 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)).

2026State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997) (quoting State v. Foster, 91 Wn.2d 466, 472 , 589 P.2d 789 (1979)). “[W]hen substantial evidence in the record supports a rational inference that the defendant committed only the lesser included or inferior degree offense to the exclusion of the greater offense, the factual component of the test for entitlement to an inferior degree offense instruction is satisfied.” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 462 .

2025A defendant who requests an inferior degree offense instruction is entitled to it if “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense ‘proscribe but one offense’; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 453 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)).

2020RCW 9A.36.031(1)(f) is relevant to this case and states that a person is guilty of third degree assault if that person, “[w]ith criminal negligence, causes bodily harm accompanied by substantial pain that extends for a period 4 Although Condon involved a lesser included offense instruction as opposed to an inferior degree offense instruction, the analysis differs only with respect to the legal component of the test. 182 Wn.2d at 316 ; see also Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 455 .

2018The difference is immaterial in this case, though, because both the Workman test for lesser degree instruction and the Peterson test for an inferior degree offense instruction require the same factual prong: that the evidence in the case supports that only the lesser or inferior degree offense was 16 No. 75144-1-1/17 committed.2 See State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 316 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015); Peterson, 133 Wn.2d at 891 .

2026State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997) (quoting State v. Foster, 91 Wn.2d 466, 472 , 589 P.2d 789 (1979)). “[W]hen substantial evidence in the record supports a rational inference that the defendant committed only the lesser included or inferior degree offense to the exclusion of the greater offense, the factual component of the test for entitlement to an inferior degree offense instruction is satisfied.” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 462 .

2026State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997) (quoting State v. Foster, 91 Wn.2d 466, 472 , 589 P.2d 789 (1979)). “[W]hen substantial evidence in the record supports a rational inference that the defendant committed only the lesser included or inferior degree offense to the exclusion of the greater offense, the factual component of the test for entitlement to an inferior degree offense instruction is satisfied.” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 462 .

2020State v. Picard, 90 Wn.

2019Therefore, not proposing a second degree animal cruelty instruction “was at least conceivably a legitimate strategy to secure an acquittal.” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 42 .3 Accordingly, we hold that defense counsel’s failure to request an inferior degree offense instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. 3.

2018State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 732 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998).

2018State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 732 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998).

2018Hassan, 151 Wn.

2017App. 685, 687 , 239 P.3d 366 (2010).

2017Under the Workman test, a party is entitled to an inferior degree offense instruction if “(1) each of the elements of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the offense charged (legal prong) and (2) the evidence in the case supports an inference that only the lesser crime was committed (factual prong).” State v. LaPlant, 157 Wn.

2016State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 755 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012).

2016State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 755 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012).

2015PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136 , 174 -75, 892 P. 2d 29 ( 1995).

2015PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136 , 174 -75, 892 P. 2d 29 ( 1995).

2014See Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 454 (stating three-part test that includes legal and factual components); State v. Dearbone. 125 Wn.2d 173, 178 , 883 P.2d 303 (1994) (noting that mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo).

2014See Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 454 (stating three-part test that includes legal and factual components); State v. Dearbone. 125 Wn.2d 173, 178 , 883 P.2d 303 (1994) (noting that mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo).

2009Id. at 604-05, 200 P.3d 287 (emphasis added). [4] Furthermore, Charles and Ieremia do not present the same procedural posture as does the case before us: Affirming a trial court's refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction, as the courts did in Charles and Ieremia , is not analogous to the majority's reversal here based on the trial court's giving an inferior degree offense instruction.

2000IV As we stated above, “[a] defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury fully instructed on the defense theory of the case.” State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 872 P.2d 502 (1994).

2000IV As we stated above, “[a] defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury fully instructed on the defense theory of the case.” State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 803 , 872 P.2d 502 (1994).