appellant that the asserted error in Washington

22 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2026 7 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. O'Haragreen wash · 2009 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2026 2 sentences 2020“To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.” O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 99 (internal quotations omitted). 2014"A constitutional error is manifest if the appellant can show actual prejudice, i.e., there must be a 'plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.'" State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (quoting O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 99 ). 70054-5-1/6 Here, Smith makes no showing that the domestic violence element implicates a constitutional interest.	1	5
State v. Fenwickgreen washctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Fenwick, 164 Wn.	1	1
State v. Davisred wash · 2012 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 316 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 62 (2013); Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2001). ¶16 A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial. 2015See State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 316 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 62 (2013); Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2001). ¶16 A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.	1	1
Marshall Dwayne Hughes v. United Statesgreen ca6 · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 316 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 62 (2013); Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2001). ¶16 A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.	1	1
Mich. Beer & Wine Wholesalers Ass'n v. Am. Beverage Ass'ngreen scotus · 2013 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 316 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 62 (2013); Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453, 464 (6th Cir. 2001). ¶16 A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Irby green washctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2025“A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.” Irby, 187 Wn. 2020“A constitutional error is manifest where there is prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial.” State v. Irby, 187 Wn.	8	2016–2025
State v. O'HARA green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2026State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999). “[T]he focus of the actual prejudice must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2022“To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a ‘plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 935 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007)). 5 No. 54332-0-II Endecott’s contention that the pretrial diversion agreement is invalid affects her constitutional rights.	5	2019–2026
State v. Gordon green wash · 2011 2 sentences 2014"A constitutional error is manifest if the appellant can show actual prejudice, i.e., there must be a 'plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.'" State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (quoting O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 99 ). 70054-5-1/6 Here, Smith makes no showing that the domestic violence element implicates a constitutional interest. 2014"A constitutional error is manifest if the appellant can show actual prejudice, i.e., there must be a 'plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.'" State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (quoting O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 99 ). 70054-5-1/6 Here, Smith makes no showing that the domestic violence element implicates a constitutional interest.	3	2014–2015
State v. WWJ Corp. green wash · 1999 2 sentences 2026State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999). “[T]he focus of the actual prejudice must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2025State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999). “[T]he focus of the actual prejudice must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the 9 No. 40913-9-III State v. Chisum error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).	2	2025–2026
State v. Kirkman green wash · 2007 2 sentences 2026Rather, the asserted error must be “manifest,” which “requires a showing of actual prejudice.” Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 935 (quoting State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1, 8 , 17 P.3d 591 (2001)) To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences during trial. 2022“To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a ‘plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 935 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007)). 5 No. 54332-0-II Endecott’s contention that the pretrial diversion agreement is invalid affects her constitutional rights.	2	2022–2026
State v. WWJ Corp. green wash · 1999 2 sentences 2026State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999). “[T]he focus of the actual prejudice must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2025State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999). “[T]he focus of the actual prejudice must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the 9 No. 40913-9-III State v. Chisum error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).	2	2025–2026
State v. Grott green wash · 2020 2 sentences 2021Id. at 269 . 2021Id. at 269 .	2	2021–2021
State v. A.M. green wash · 2019 2 sentences 2020“To determine whether manifest constitutional error was committed there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences.” State v. A.M., 194 Wn.2d 33, 38 , 448 P.3d 35 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2020“To determine whether manifest constitutional error was committed there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences.” State v. A.M., 194 Wn.2d 33, 38 , 448 P.3d 35 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2019–2020
State v. Walsh green wash · 2001 1 sentence 2026Rather, the asserted error must be “manifest,” which “requires a showing of actual prejudice.” Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 935 (quoting State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1, 8 , 17 P.3d 591 (2001)) To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences during trial.	1	2026–2026
State v. Walsh green wash · 2001 1 sentence 2026Rather, the asserted error must be “manifest,” which “requires a showing of actual prejudice.” Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 935 (quoting State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1, 8 , 17 P.3d 591 (2001)) To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences during trial.	1	2026–2026
State v. Kirkman green wash · 2007 1 sentence 2022“To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be a ‘plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 935 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007)). 5 No. 54332-0-II Endecott’s contention that the pretrial diversion agreement is invalid affects her constitutional rights.	1	2022–2022

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (14) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.160 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.18.020 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.525 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.703 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.190 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 43.43.7541 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.076 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.020 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check