abuse of discretion standard in Washington

2026“Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995).

2026“Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995).

2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)).

2026We agree with the State. “‘Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 430 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 174-75 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995)).

2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no

2020This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 When a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could no

2009State v. Ferguson, 142 Wash.2d 631, 646 , 15 P.3d 1271 (2001). ¶ 37 We review an exceptional sentence under the abuse of discretion standard.

2009State v. Ferguson, 142 Wn.2d 631, 646 , 15 P.3d 1271 (2001). ¶37 We review an exceptional sentence under the abuse of discretion standard.

2001On review we ask “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence under a clearly erroneous standard, (2) whether as a matter of law the reasons justify an exceptional sentence, and (3) whether an exceptional sentence is clearly excessive under an abuse of discretion standard.” Halgren, 137 Wn.2d at 345 -46 (citing RCW 9.94A.210(4); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986)).

2001On review we ask “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence under a clearly erroneous standard, (2) whether as a matter of law the reasons justify an exceptional sentence, and (3) whether an exceptional sentence is clearly excessive under an abuse of discretion standard.” Halgren, 137 Wn.2d at 345 -46 (citing RCW 9.94A.210(4); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986)).

2020“A trial court’s determination that a hearsay exception applies is judged on an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Maqers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 187 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008).

2018But evidence of K.L.'s identification is sufficient to link him to the crime. 71 State v. Thomerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P.3d 43 (2011)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 191 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008)). -16 No. 76074-2-1 / 17 [that] the instances of misconduct affected the jury's verdict.'"72 We review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard." Cardona-Hernandez contends that a comment made by the State during closing arguments bolstered the witnesses' credibility and mischaracterized the role of the jury.

2020“A trial court’s determination that a hearsay exception applies is judged on an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Maqers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 187 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008).

2018But evidence of K.L.'s identification is sufficient to link him to the crime. 71 State v. Thomerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P.3d 43 (2011)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 191 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008)). -16 No. 76074-2-1 / 17 [that] the instances of misconduct affected the jury's verdict.'"72 We review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of discretion standard." Cardona-Hernandez contends that a comment made by the State during closing arguments bolstered the witnesses' credibility and mischaracterized the role of the jury.

2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d at 623 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).

2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 623 , 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).

2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d at 623 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).

2023“Under an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will find error only when the trial court’s decision (1) adopts a view that no reasonable person would take and is thus ‘manifestly unreasonable,’ (2) rests on facts unsupported in the record and is thus based on ‘untenable grounds,’ or (3) was reached by applying the wrong legal standard and is thus made ‘for untenable reasons.’ ” State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 623 , 290 P.3d 942 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654 , 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).

2020State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

2017State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

2025We reverse if “under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record” to support the exceptional sentence; “under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range”; or “under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.” France, 176 Wn.

2021To reverse an exceptional sentence, we must conclude that: (1) under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence; (2) under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range; or (3) under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient. 6 No. 80864-8-I/7 State v. France, 176 Wn.

2004Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the superior court's determination except upon a clear showing that the determination was "manifestly unreasonable" or was based upon "untenable grounds" or made for "untenable reasons." Rivers, 145 Wash.2d at 684 , 41 P.3d 1175 (quoting Burnet *427 v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).

2004Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the superior court’s determination except upon a clear showing that the determination was “ ‘manifestly unreasonable’ ” or was based upon “ ‘untenable grounds’ ” or made for “ ‘untenable reasons.’ ” Rivers, 145 Wn.2d at 684 -85 (quoting Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).

2020State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

2017State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

2018See id. at 652, 656 ; State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 791-92 , 239 P.3d 1059 (2010); State v. Cordero, 170 Wn.

2017We “apply an abuse of discretion standard of review, and if the condition is unconstitutionally vague, it will be manifestly unreasonable.” Valencia, 169 Wn.2d at 793 .

2026Ordinarily, we review “a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). “[A]n erroneous evidentiary ruling does not result in reversal unless the defendant was prejudiced.” State v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 193 Wn.

2019“We review a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995).

2026Ordinarily, we review “a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). “[A]n erroneous evidentiary ruling does not result in reversal unless the defendant was prejudiced.” State v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 193 Wn.

2019“We review a trial court’s decisions as to the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995).

2024Rivers v. Wash. State Conf. of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674, 685 , 41 P.3d 1175 (2002).

2004Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the superior court's determination except upon a clear showing that the determination was "manifestly unreasonable" or was based upon "untenable grounds" or made for "untenable reasons." Rivers, 145 Wash.2d at 684 , 41 P.3d 1175 (quoting Burnet *427 v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).

2018"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) (citing State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 195 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986)).

2018"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) (citing State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 195 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986)).