touchstone error in Washington

2026Only if we conclude the court’s comment on the evidence was improper do we presume the comment is prejudicial, “and 7 No. 40627-0-III State v. Martinez-Caraza the burden is on the State to show that the defendant was not prejudiced, unless the record affirmatively shows that no prejudice could have resulted.” Levy, 156 Wn.2d at 723 .

2024We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. 24 State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 721 , 132 P.3d 1076 (2006).

2025Generally, “the touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of -16- No. 86847-1-I/17 the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Brush, 183 Wn.2d 550, 565-66 , 353 P.3d 213 (2015) (Wiggins, J., concurring in part and concurring in result).

2025Generally, “the touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of -16- No. 86847-1-I/17 the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Brush, 183 Wn.2d 550, 565-66 , 353 P.3d 213 (2015) (Wiggins, J., concurring in part and concurring in result).

2024We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. 24 State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 721 , 132 P.3d 1076 (2006).

2024We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. 24 State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 721 , 132 P.3d 1076 (2006).

2009“The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). “ ‘All remarks and observations as to the facts before the jury are positively prohibited.’ ” State v. Bogner, 62 Wn.2d 247, 252 , 382 P.2d 254 (1963) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246, 250 , 34 P. 938 , 34 P. 1098 (1893)). ¶28 Here, the trial court’s statement was not a comment on the evidence.

2009“The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). “ ‘All remarks and observations as to the facts before the jury are positively prohibited.’ ” State v. Bogner, 62 Wn.2d 247, 252 , 382 P.2d 254 (1963) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246, 250 , 34 P. 938 , 34 P. 1098 (1893)). ¶28 Here, the trial court’s statement was not a comment on the evidence.

2009“The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). “ ‘All remarks and observations as to the facts before the jury are positively prohibited.’ ” State v. Bogner, 62 Wn.2d 247, 252 , 382 P.2d 254 (1963) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246, 250 , 34 P. 938 , 34 P. 1098 (1893)). ¶28 Here, the trial court’s statement was not a comment on the evidence.

2009“The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.” State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995). “ ‘All remarks and observations as to the facts before the jury are positively prohibited.’ ” State v. Bogner, 62 Wn.2d 247, 252 , 382 P.2d 254 (1963) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246, 250 , 34 P. 938 , 34 P. 1098 (1893)). ¶28 Here, the trial court’s statement was not a comment on the evidence.

2026“For the comment to be impermissible, the court’s attitude toward the merits of the case must be ‘reasonably inferable from the nature or manner of the questions asked and the things said.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Brown, 31 Wn.2d 475, 486 , 197 P.2d 590 (1948)). “‘The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995)). 9 No. 59853-1-II Citing State v.

2026“For the comment to be impermissible, the court’s attitude toward the merits of the case must be ‘reasonably inferable from the nature or manner of the questions asked and the things said.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Brown, 31 Wn.2d 475, 486 , 197 P.2d 590 (1948)). “‘The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995)). 9 No. 59853-1-II Citing State v.

2026“For the comment to be impermissible, the court’s attitude toward the merits of the case must be ‘reasonably inferable from the nature or manner of the questions asked and the things said.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Brown, 31 Wn.2d 475, 486 , 197 P.2d 590 (1948)). “‘The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995)). 9 No. 59853-1-II Citing State v.

2025That access must be significant enough that it can be concluded that the nonconsenting co-occupant assumed the risk that the consenting co-occupant would invite others into the shared area.” State v. Morse, 156 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 123 P.3d 832 (2005).

2025That access must be significant enough that it can be concluded that the nonconsenting co-occupant assumed the risk that the consenting co-occupant would invite others into the shared area.” State v. Morse, 156 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 123 P.3d 832 (2005).

2023App. 168, 179 , 199 P.3d 478 (quoting Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 838 ), review denied, 166 Wn.2d 1027 (2009).

2023App. 924, 935 , 219 P.3d 958 (2009) (quoting State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995)). “‘The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.’” State v. Francisco, 148 Wn.

2023App. 168, 179 , 199 P.3d 478 (quoting Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 838 ), review denied, 166 Wn.2d 1027 (2009).

2023App. 924, 935 , 219 P.3d 958 (2009) (quoting State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995)). “‘The touchstone of error in a trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.’” State v. Francisco, 148 Wn.

2016Hsu, 852 F.2d at 410 . ¶113 The touchstone of the analysis under Mosley is whether a “review of the circumstances” leading up to the statements made to police show the “ ‘right to cut off *134 questioning’ was fully respected.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474). ¶114 Here, the undisputed findings support the conclusion that the right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored.

2016Hsu, 852 F.2d at 410 . ¶113 The touchstone of the analysis under Mosley is whether a “review of the circumstances” leading up to the statements made to police show the “ ‘right to cut off *134 questioning’ was fully respected.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474). ¶114 Here, the undisputed findings support the conclusion that the right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored.

2014Article 4, section 16 of the Washington Constitution provides, "Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law." "A statement by the court constitutes a comment on the evidence if the court's attitude toward the merits of the case or the court's evaluation relative to the disputed issue is inferable from the statement."127 "The touchstone of error in a trial court's comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury."128 "The purpo

2014Article 4, section 16 of the Washington Constitution provides, "Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law." "A statement by the court constitutes a comment on the evidence if the court's attitude toward the merits of the case or the court's evaluation relative to the disputed issue is inferable from the statement."127 "The touchstone of error in a trial court's comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury."128 "The purpo

2013The touchstone of the inquiry is whether the attorney fees were "'expended by the victim as a direct result of the crime.'" Tobin. 161 Wn.2d at 524 (quoting Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d at 287).

1997Terry holds that the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 .

1997Terry holds that the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. at 1878 .

1997What is reasonable depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S. Ct. 2574 , 45 L.

1997What is reasonable depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S. Ct. 2574 , 45 L.

1995State v. Trickel, 16 Wn.

1995State v. Trickel, 16 Wn.

1983Here, the arresting officer clearly established the credibility of his informant by stating "the informant had previously given substantial quantities of information concerning drug activity that the officer had verified by independent means." State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962 , 639 P.2d 743 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982); cf. State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74 , 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (mere conclusory statement that informant had "proven to be reliable" not enough to establish credibility).

1983Here, the arresting officer clearly established the credibility of his informant by stating "the informant had previously given substantial quantities of information concerning drug activity that the officer had verified by independent means." State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962 , 639 P.2d 743 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982); cf. State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74 , 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (mere conclusory statement that informant had "proven to be reliable" not enough to establish credibility).

1983Here, the arresting officer clearly established the credibility of his informant by stating "the informant had previously given substantial quantities of information concerning drug activity that the officer had verified by independent means." State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962 , 639 P.2d 743 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982); cf. State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74 , 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (mere conclusory statement that informant had "proven to be reliable" not enough to establish credibility).

1983Here, the arresting officer clearly established the credibility of his informant by stating "the informant had previously given substantial quantities of information concerning drug activity that the officer had verified by independent means." State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962 , 639 P.2d 743 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982); cf. State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74 , 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (mere conclusory statement that informant had "proven to be reliable" not enough to establish credibility).

1983Here, the arresting officer clearly established the credibility of his informant by stating "the informant had previously given substantial quantities of information concerning drug activity that the officer had verified by independent means." State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962 , 639 P.2d 743 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982); cf. State v. Woodall, 100 Wn.2d 74 , 666 P.2d 364 (1983) (mere conclusory statement that informant had "proven to be reliable" not enough to establish credibility).

1976State v. Gitchel, 5 Wn.