State contends error in Washington

2010McCarty, 140 Wash.2d at 428 , 998 P.2d 296 . ¶ 32 Here, attempting to avoid the Vangerpen mandated remedy of dismissal without prejudice, the State contends the error committed in Siers' case "is not in the charging language for second degree assault, but the failure to provide proper notice of the aggravating circumstance." [6] After Powell , this too is a distinction without a difference.

2010McCarty, 140 Wn.2d at 428 . ¶32 Here, attempting to avoid the Vangerpen-mandated remedy of dismissal without prejudice, the State contends the error committed in Siers’ case “is not in the charging language for second degree assault, but the failure to provide proper notice of the aggravating circumstance.” 6 After Powell, this too is a distinction without a difference.

2007Pierce County II, 159 Wn.2d at 41 .

2007Pierce County II, 159 Wash.2d at 41 , 148 P.3d 1002 .

1997The Court of Appeals agreed with the State declaring "we are confident the court would impose the same sentence if we were to remand.” Parker, 82 Wn.

1997The Court of Appeals agreed with the State declaring "we are confident the court would impose the same sentence if we were to remand." Parker, 82 Wash.App. at 139 , 916 P.2d 467 .

2025In that case, on appeal from the defendant’s convictions for first degree child molestation, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction regarding ER 404(b) evidence relating to the defendant’s molestation of other children was harmless given the other “overwhelming evidence” of guilt. 173 Wn.2d at 425 .

2025“Whether a trial court should have . . . ordered a competency evaluation is . . . reviewed for [an] abuse of discretion.” See State v. McCarthy, 193 Wn.2d 792, 803 , 446 P.3d 167 (2019); State v. Fedoruk, 5 Wn.

2025“Whether a trial court should have . . . ordered a competency evaluation is . . . reviewed for [an] abuse of discretion.” See State v. McCarthy, 193 Wn.2d 792, 803 , 446 P.3d 167 (2019); State v. Fedoruk, 5 Wn.

2024A harmless error is one made by the court that is “‘trivial, or formal, or merely academic, and was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and in no way affected the outcome of the case.’” State v. Havens, 171 Wn.

2018While the 8 No. 34576-9-III State v. Anderson invited error doctrine “generally forecloses review of an instructional error, [it] does not bar review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on such instruction.” State v. Woods, 138 Wn.

2017Clare may not challenge the instruction for the first time on appeal. ¶10 Jury instructions are generally adequate if, when read as a whole, they “ ‘properly inform the jury of the applicable law.’ ” State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (quoting State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620, 626 , 56 P.3d 550 (2002)).

2017Clare may not challenge the instruction for the first time on appeal. ¶10 Jury instructions are generally adequate if, when read as a whole, they “ ‘properly inform the jury of the applicable law.’ ” State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (quoting State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620, 626 , 56 P.3d 550 (2002)).

2017Clare may not challenge the instruction for the first time on appeal. ¶10 Jury instructions are generally adequate if, when read as a whole, they “ ‘properly inform the jury of the applicable law.’ ” State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (quoting State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620, 626 , 56 P.3d 550 (2002)).

2017Clare may not challenge the instruction for the first time on appeal. ¶10 Jury instructions are generally adequate if, when read as a whole, they “ ‘properly inform the jury of the applicable law.’ ” State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (quoting State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620, 626 , 56 P.3d 550 (2002)).

2016In Victor , the Court described the meaning of an “abiding conviction” as “settled” and “fixed.” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 . “‘The word “abiding” here has the signification of settled and fixed, a conviction which may follow a careful examination and comparison of the whole evidence.’ ” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 *375 (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 , 7 S. Ct. 614 , 30 L.

2016In Victor , the Court described the meaning of an “abiding conviction” as “settled” and “fixed.” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 . “‘The word “abiding” here has the signification of settled and fixed, a conviction which may follow a careful examination and comparison of the whole evidence.’ ” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 *375 (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 , 7 S. Ct. 614 , 30 L.

2016In Victor , the Court described the meaning of an “abiding conviction” as “settled” and “fixed.” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 . “‘The word “abiding” here has the signification of settled and fixed, a conviction which may follow a careful examination and comparison of the whole evidence.’ ” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 *375 (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 , 7 S. Ct. 614 , 30 L.

2016In Victor , the Court described the meaning of an “abiding conviction” as “settled” and “fixed.” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 . “‘The word “abiding” here has the signification of settled and fixed, a conviction which may follow a careful examination and comparison of the whole evidence.’ ” Victor, 511 U.S. at 15 *375 (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 , 7 S. Ct. 614 , 30 L.

2016Because the consent jury instruction violated due process, “reversal is ordinarily the proper remedy unless the State can prove the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” W.R., 181 Wn.2d at 770 . ¶31 Although W.R. involved a bench trial, the analysis of harmless error provides guidance.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2013The State also suggests that the unanimity portions in the opening and closing instructions are broad 74 State v. Gordon. 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011). 75 State v. Nunez. 174 Wn.2d 707, 712 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (citing Blakelv v. Washington. 542 U.S. 296, 313-14 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L Ed. 2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2012Our Supreme Court concluded that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and held that “at the very least, counsel must reasonably evaluate the evidence against the accused and the likelihood of a conviction if the case proceeds to trial so that the defendant can make a meaningful decision as to whether or not to plead guilty.” A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d at 111-12 . ¶15 The State contends that defense counsel could have provided “reasonable and competent advice regarding the plea offer.” Resp’t’s Br. at 16.

2010McCarty, 140 Wash.2d at 428 , 998 P.2d 296 . ¶ 32 Here, attempting to avoid the Vangerpen mandated remedy of dismissal without prejudice, the State contends the error committed in Siers' case "is not in the charging language for second degree assault, but the failure to provide proper notice of the aggravating circumstance." [6] After Powell , this too is a distinction without a difference.

2010Id. at 804 , 792 P.2d 506 .

2010Id. at 804 , 792 P.2d 506 .

2007Pierce County II, 159 Wash.2d at 41 , 148 P.3d 1002 .

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2004R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 , 99 S.Ct. 2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). [3] In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 21 , 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd sub nom, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . [4] The State contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.