commits reversible error in Washington

2020State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d at 656 .

2014A trial court commits reversible error by instruct[ ing] the jury in a manner that would relieve the State of this burden." State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 656 , 904 P. 2d 245 ( 1995).

2016The trial court's instruction followed the Washington pattern jury instructions for violation of a court order.3 We review a challenged jury instruction de novo, examining it in the context of the instructions as a whole.4 Jury instructions must inform the jury that the State bears the burden of proving every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.5 A court commits reversible error if its instructions 3 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 36.50, at 632 (3d ed. 2008). 4 State v. Castillo. 150 Wn.

2014In State v. Pirtle.16 our Supreme Court approved a similar instruction, concluding, Without the last sentence, the jury instruction here follows WPIC 4.01 [11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 4.01, at 65 (2d ed. 1994)], which previously 12 State v. Castillo. 150 Wn.

2012State v. Hale, 94 Wash.App. 46, 53 , 971 P.2d 88 (1999).

2012State v. Hale, 94 Wash.App. 46, 53 , 971 P.2d 88 (1999).

1995In addition, a trial court commits reversible error if it "knows or reasonably should know of a particular conflict into which it fails to inquire.” Richardson, 100 Wn.2d at 677 ; see Wood, 450 U.S. 261 ; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S. Ct. 1173 , 55 L.

1989In Richardson the court stated that "a trial court commits reversible error if it knows or reasonably should know of a particular conflict into which it fails to inquire." (Italics mine.) Richardson, 100 Wn.2d at 677 .

2025In her appellate briefing, Holguin relies on Bordynoski v. Bergner to argue that a trial court commits reversible error when it disregards one party’s testimony, on which reasonable minds could differ, and finds that party negligent as a matter of law. 97 Wn.2d 335, 343 , 644 P.2d 1173 (1982).

2025In her appellate briefing, Holguin relies on Bordynoski v. Bergner to argue that a trial court commits reversible error when it disregards one party’s testimony, on which reasonable minds could differ, and finds that party negligent as a matter of law. 97 Wn.2d 335, 343 , 644 P.2d 1173 (1982).

2021State v. Green, 182 Wn.

2020State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d at 714 .

2020State v. Murray, 118 Wn.

2018However, our Supreme Court reversed this holding and specifically “disavow[ed] any interpretation of our previous case law suggesting a trial court commits reversible error by failing to give a limiting instruction for ER 404(b) evidence absent a request for such an instruction.” Russell, 171 Wn.2d at 124 . 9 No. 49482-5-II Dockery fails to show within reasonable probability, that the trial outcome would have been materially affected absent this evidence.

2018In City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d at 605-06 , our Supreme Court noted the typical remedy, when the trial court commits reversible error by not recognizing or applying the correct “manifest hardship” analysis, is a remand for the trial court to apply the proper standard.

2018State v. Blancaflor, 183 Wn.

2016App. 466, 469 , 208 P.3d 1201 (2009). 5 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 307 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). -3- No. 75240-5-1 / 4 relieve the State of this burden.6 Instructions must also properly inform the jury about the applicable law and must not mislead the jury.7 RCW 10.99.050(2)(a) prohibits "[wjillful violation of a court order."8 A willfulness requirement "is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears."9 In State v. Clowes,10 Division Two of this court held that the trial court did

2016App. 466, 469 , 208 P.3d 1201 (2009). 5 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 307 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). -3- No. 75240-5-1 / 4 relieve the State of this burden.6 Instructions must also properly inform the jury about the applicable law and must not mislead the jury.7 RCW 10.99.050(2)(a) prohibits "[wjillful violation of a court order."8 A willfulness requirement "is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears."9 In State v. Clowes,10 Division Two of this court held that the trial court did

2016App. 466, 469 , 208 P.3d 1201 (2009). 5 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 307 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). -3- No. 75240-5-1 / 4 relieve the State of this burden.6 Instructions must also properly inform the jury about the applicable law and must not mislead the jury.7 RCW 10.99.050(2)(a) prohibits "[wjillful violation of a court order."8 A willfulness requirement "is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears."9 In State v. Clowes,10 Division Two of this court held that the trial court did

2014Again, a]n issue raised and argued for the first time in a reply brief is too late to warrant consideration." Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, 118 Wn.2d at 809 .

2014A trial court commits reversible error by instruct[ ing] the jury in a manner that would relieve the State of this burden." State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 656 , 904 P. 2d 245 ( 1995).

2014In general, " jury instructions are sufficient when, 3 No. 44117 -9 -II read as a whole, they accurately state the law, do not mislead the jury, and permit each party to argue its theory of the case." State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333, 3 .39, 96 P. 3d 974 ( 2004).

2014Grayson, 154 Wn.2d at 342 . funding to support program, In Grayson, the trial court failed to consider the defendant' s individualized circumstances on the record. 154 Wn.2d at 342 .

2014Grayson, 154 Wn.2d at 342 . funding to support program, In Grayson, the trial court failed to consider the defendant' s individualized circumstances on the record. 154 Wn.2d at 342 .

2014State v. Kidd, 57 Wn.

2014In general, " jury instructions are sufficient when, 3 No. 44117 -9 -II read as a whole, they accurately state the law, do not mislead the jury, and permit each party to argue its theory of the case." State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333, 3 .39, 96 P. 3d 974 ( 2004).

2013Id.

2012State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238, 245-46 , 53 P.3d 26 (2002). ¶12 Our conclusion that admission of the improper evidence was harmless rests largely on the fact that, here, the trial court was the trier of fact.

2012State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238, 245-46 , 53 P.3d 26 (2002). ¶12 Our conclusion that admission of the improper evidence was harmless rests largely on the fact that, here, the trial court was the trier of fact.

1995In addition, a trial court commits reversible error if it "knows or reasonably should know of a particular conflict into which it fails to inquire.” Richardson, 100 Wn.2d at 677 ; see Wood, 450 U.S. 261 ; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S. Ct. 1173 , 55 L.

1995In addition, a trial court commits reversible error if it "knows or reasonably should know of a particular conflict into which it fails to inquire.” Richardson, 100 Wn.2d at 677 ; see Wood, 450 U.S. 261 ; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S. Ct. 1173 , 55 L.