Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2017State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”). 6 Although Jones’s assignments of error, issue statement, and section headings refer to the State’s use of post-arrest silence, Jones argues that the State should not have referenced the fact Jones failed to come forward before he was arrested. 2017See State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2017State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”). 6 Although Jones’s assignments of error, issue statement, and section headings refer to the State’s use of post-arrest silence, Jones argues that the State should not have referenced the fact Jones failed to come forward before he was arrested. 2017See State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 424 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (“[I]n the context of ER 404(b) limiting instructions, once a criminal defendant requests a limiting instruction, the trial court has a duty to correctly instruct the jury, notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to propose a correct instruction.”). 2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error | 5 | 5 |
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 424 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (“[I]n the context of ER 404(b) limiting instructions, once a criminal defendant requests a limiting instruction, the trial court has a duty to correctly instruct the jury, notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to propose a correct instruction.”). 2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error | 4 | 4 |
Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc.green2 sentences2009Lockwood v. AC&S, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) (“Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”); State v. Newbern, 95 Wn. 2009Lockwood v. AC&S, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) (“Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”); State v. Newbern, 95 Wn. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Hessgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error 2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error | 2 | 6 |
State v. Newberngreen2 sentences2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error 2009Lockwood v. AC&S, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) (“Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others.”); State v. Newbern, 95 Wn. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Kontrathgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) ("[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Kontrath, 61 Wn.2d 588, 591 , 379 P.2d 359 (1963) ("The court's refusal to give appellant's requested instruction allowed the jury to give unlimited consideration to the evidence."). 2016See State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) ("[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Kontrath, 61 Wn.2d 588, 591 , 379 P.2d 359 (1963) ("The court's refusal to give appellant's requested instruction allowed the jury to give unlimited consideration to the evidence."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Noyesgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error 2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error | 1 | 3 |
State v. Greshamgreen2 sentences2025Although Gresham did not address the invited error doctrine, we reject the State’s invitation to apply it here for the same reason the Gresham court declined to apply the waiver doctrine in such a scenario, namely that placing the duty to correctly instruct the jury on the trial court, rather than defense counsel, is “more efficient and better prevents the possibility of unfair prejudice than does the alternative of holding that defense - 17 - No. 85627-8-I counsel’s failure to craft a proper instruction is waiver of the request for a limiting instruction, thereby relegating the defendant to a 2021See State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“[A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 424 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (“[I]n the context of ER 404(b) limiting instructions, once a criminal defendant requests a limiting instruction, the trial court has a duty to correctly instruct the jury, notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to propose a correct instruction.”). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden 1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lenarchickgreen2 sentences1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden 1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden 1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Samuel Walter Rogersgreen1 sentence1999United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976); State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1031 (1994); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425 , 247 N.W.2d 80, 87 (1976); People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998, 1002 (1971). [6] ER 105 states: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." [7] Further, "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, eviden | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Athan
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error 2015Accord, State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) ("Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte."); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P .2d 1102 (1997) ("The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error if no instruction was requested."); State v. Hess, 86 Wn.2d 5 | 6 | 2011–2015 |
State v. Athan
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Noyes, 69 Wn.2d 441, 446-47 , 418 P.2d 471 (1966); accord State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) (“Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte.”); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P.2d 1102 (1997) (“The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error 2015Accord, State v. Russell, 171 Wn.2d 118, 123-24 , 249 P.3d 604 (2011) ("Since Noyes, this court has continued to hold that absent a request for a limiting instruction, the trial court is not required to give one sua sponte."); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354, 383 , 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (the omission of a limiting instruction is not reversible error where defendant fails to request the instruction during trial); State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 36 , 941 P .2d 1102 (1997) ("The failure of a court to give a cautionary instruction is not error if no instruction was requested."); State v. Hess, 86 Wn.2d 5 | 6 | 2011–2015 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2009But, in Clark the Court of Appeals followed the rule of ER 105 and held that absent a request for a limiting instruction "error is waived...." Clark, 48 Wash. App. at 865 n. 3, 743 P.2d 822 . 2009But, in Clark the Court of Appeals followed the rule of ER 105 and held that absent a request for a limiting instruction, “error is waived ....” Clark, 48 Wn. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Grant
green
2 sentences2009Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) ("Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Newbern, 95 Wash.App. 277, 295-96 , 975 P.2d 1041 (1999) ("A party's failure to request a limiting instruction constitutes a waiver of that party's right to such an instruction and fails to preserve the claimed error for appeal."). ¶ 81 Washington courts have held that evidence of prior physical abuse of either a victim or her family members is admissible to "rebut the implication th 2009Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) ("Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Newbern, 95 Wash.App. 277, 295-96 , 975 P.2d 1041 (1999) ("A party's failure to request a limiting instruction constitutes a waiver of that party's right to such an instruction and fails to preserve the claimed error for appeal."). ¶ 81 Washington courts have held that evidence of prior physical abuse of either a victim or her family members is admissible to "rebut the implication th | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002And “[ajbsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is considered relevant for others.” Lockwood v. AC&S, Inc., 44 Wn. 2002And "[a]bsent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence admitted as relevant for one purpose is considered relevant for others." Lockwood v. A C & S, Inc., 44 Wash.App. 330, 344 , 722 P.2d 826 (1986) (citing ER 105 & cmt.), aff'd, 109 Wash.2d 235 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences1974State v. Adams, 5 Wn. 1973State v. Adams, 5 Wn. | 2 | 1973–1974 |
State v. Sua
green
1 sentence2017Given this, to the extent the State used Delbrouck’s prior statements as substantive evidence in its argument, that argument was not improper. 12 No. 48689-0-II Furthermore, Jones’s reliance on State v. Sua, 115 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2013However, the trial court has no duty to give the limiting instruction sua sponte. ]g\ at 423 n.2. 27 ]d. at 424-25 ("This approach is also more efficient and better prevents the possibility of unfair prejudice than does the alternative of holding that defense counsel's failure to craft a proper instruction is waiver of the request for a limiting instruction, thereby relegating the defendant to a personal restraint petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel."). 28 id, at 423-24. 29 ]d at 425. 30 ]cL (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P. 2013However, the trial court has no duty to give the limiting instruction sua sponte. ]g\ at 423 n.2. 27 ]d. at 424-25 ("This approach is also more efficient and better prevents the possibility of unfair prejudice than does the alternative of holding that defense counsel's failure to craft a proper instruction is waiver of the request for a limiting instruction, thereby relegating the defendant to a personal restraint petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel."). 28 id, at 423-24. 29 ]d at 425. 30 ]cL (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2009Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) ("Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Newbern, 95 Wash.App. 277, 295-96 , 975 P.2d 1041 (1999) ("A party's failure to request a limiting instruction constitutes a waiver of that party's right to such an instruction and fails to preserve the claimed error for appeal."). ¶ 81 Washington courts have held that evidence of prior physical abuse of either a victim or her family members is admissible to "rebut the implication th 2009Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 235, 255 , 744 P.2d 605 (1987) ("Absent a request for a limiting instruction, evidence which is admitted as relevant for one purpose is deemed relevant for others."); State v. Newbern, 95 Wash.App. 277, 295-96 , 975 P.2d 1041 (1999) ("A party's failure to request a limiting instruction constitutes a waiver of that party's right to such an instruction and fails to preserve the claimed error for appeal."). ¶ 81 Washington courts have held that evidence of prior physical abuse of either a victim or her family members is admissible to "rebut the implication th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Gindin v. Baron
green
2 sentences1966Super. 1 , 83 A.2d 790 ; Kading v. Willis, 135 Cal. App. 2d 82 , 286 P.2d 861 . 1966That a request for a limiting instruction is a prerequisite to a successful claim of error on appeal, see Dirring v. United States, 328 F.2d 512 (1st Cir.); Gindin v. Baron, 16 N.J. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Kading v. Willis
green
2 sentences1966Super. 1 , 83 A.2d 790 ; Kading v. Willis, 135 Cal. App. 2d 82 , 286 P.2d 861 . 1966Super. 1 , 83 A.2d 790 ; Kading v. Willis, 135 Cal. App. 2d 82 , 286 P.2d 861 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
John T. Dirring v. United States of America, (Two Cases)
green
1 sentence1966That a request for a limiting instruction is a prerequisite to a successful claim of error on appeal, see Dirring v. United States, 328 F.2d 512 (1st Cir.); Gindin v. Baron, 16 N.J. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.