evidence supports instruction in Washington

2022“A criminal defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction.” State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010).

2019A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction §_ta_t_e_ v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010) (citing State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995)).

2022“A criminal defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction.” State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010).

2019A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction §_ta_t_e_ v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010) (citing State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995)).

2019A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction §_ta_t_e_ v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010) (citing State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995)).

2010State v. Ager, 128 Wash.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995).

2019A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if the evidence supports the instruction §_ta_t_e_ v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 336 , 241 P.3d 410 (2010) (citing State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995)).

2010State v. Ager, 128 Wash.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995).

2016The Bea line of cases appears to conflict with Kappelman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 217 P.3d 286 (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that, where the decision to give a jury instruction depends on whether the evidence supports the instruction, review is for abuse of discretion.

2016The Bea line of cases appears to conflict with Kappelman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 217 P.3d 286 (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that, where the decision to give a jury instruction depends on whether the evidence supports the instruction, review is for abuse of discretion.

2016The Bea line of cases appears to conflict with Kappelman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 217 P.3d 286 (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that, where the decision to give a jury instruction depends on whether the evidence supports the instruction, review is for abuse of discretion.

2016The Bea line of cases appears to conflict with Kappelman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 217 P.3d 286 (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that, where the decision to give a jury instruction depends on whether the evidence supports the instruction, review is for abuse of discretion.

1998State v. Warden, 133 Wash.2d 559 , 562 947 P.2d 708 (1997).

1998State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559, 562 , 947 P.2d 708 (1997).

1998State v. Warden, 133 Wash.2d 559 , 562 947 P.2d 708 (1997).

1998State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559, 562 , 947 P.2d 708 (1997).

2019However, “[t]he court need not give amplified instructions, if the instructions given are broad enough to permit argument.” M y_.__E_lc_l_e_r, 70 Wn.2d 414, 419 , 423 P.2d 533 (1967).

2019However, “[t]he court need not give amplified instructions, if the instructions given are broad enough to permit argument.” M y_.__E_lc_l_e_r, 70 Wn.2d 414, 419 , 423 P.2d 533 (1967).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018I Gentry argues in the alternative that the evidence supports a presumption that Roberts was personally served the summons and complaint by his father, citing Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838 , 336 P.3d 1155 (2014).

2018I Gentry argues in the alternative that the evidence supports a presumption that Roberts was personally served the summons and complaint by his father, citing Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838 , 336 P.3d 1155 (2014).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016) (citing State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 259-60 , 937 P.2d 1052 (1997); State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 850 P.2d 495 (1993)).

2018App. 292,299 , 730 P.2d 706 (1986). 18 State v. Webb, 162 Wn.

2018The defendant is "entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it."17 "If supported by evidence, a proposed instruction should be given if it properly states the law, is not misleading, and allows the party to argue his or her theory of the case."18 The trial court must examine the evidence and draw all inferences favorable to the requesting party when determining whether the evidence supports an instruction." 17 State v. Hansen, 46 Wn.

2014"To raise self- defense before a jury, a defendant bears the initial burden of producing some evidence that his or her actions occurred in circumstances amounting to self-defense." Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 909 .

2013See, e.g., Kuvara, 149 Wn.2d at 252-53 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cramer, 168 Wn.2d 220, 230-31 , 225 P.3d 881 (2010).

2013See, e.g., Kuvara, 149 Wn.2d at 252-53 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cramer, 168 Wn.2d 220, 230-31 , 225 P.3d 881 (2010).

2010McGuire, 144 Wn.2d at 652 ; Hilltop Terrace, 126 Wn.2d at 34 . ¶39 In sum, if an environmental impact statement is required by the weight of evidence (as the examiner found) and if the responsible legislative authority does not require an environmental impact statement (as it did not here), then the decision is clearly erroneous.

2010McGuire, 144 Wn.2d at 652 .

2010McGuire, 144 Wn.2d at 652 ; Hilltop Terrace, 126 Wn.2d at 34 . ¶39 In sum, if an environmental impact statement is required by the weight of evidence (as the examiner found) and if the responsible legislative authority does not require an environmental impact statement (as it did not here), then the decision is clearly erroneous.

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

2009RCW 10.61.003. [4] This is similar to the facts of Marselle where the defendant's admission was considered and apparently disregarded by the jury, which returned a verdict on the included offense. [1] See Brockob, 159 Wash.2d at 331-32 , 150 P.3d 59 (corpus delicti required independent proof of intent for the charge of possession with ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); State v. James, 104 Wash.App. 25, 36-37 , 15 P.3d 1041 (2000) (where statutory elements of bail jumping include a knowing failure to appear after release by court order or bail with a requirement of a subsequ

1993The Draper court also held that, even when a defendant admits committing the act charged, an entrapment instruction is only warranted if the evidence supports the instruction, i.e., demonstrates that the defendant was "lured, inveigled or induced into the commission of a criminal act" and lacked the predisposition to commit the act. 10 Wn.