two step inquiry in Washington

2011First, the trial court conducts a factual inquiry into the person's history and mental condition; second, it determines on a legal basis whether "an objective person knowing the factual circumstances of the individual's history and mental condition would have a reasonable apprehension that the individual's act would cause harm of a sexually violent nature." Marshall, 156 Wash.2d at 158 , 125 P.3d 111 (citing State v. McNutt, 124 Wash.App. 344, 350 , 101 P.3d 422 (2004)). ¶ 41 Here, the State asked the trial court to determine that Durbin's confinement in Clark County was for an act that would

2005Id. ¶17 That this is a question for the court is demonstrated by our decision in.

2018First, it must prove the following statutory elements by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child; (b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to RCW 13.34.130; (c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency; (d) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been expressly and understandably offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of

2018First, it must prove the following statutory elements by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child; (b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to RCW 13.34.130; (c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency; (d) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been expressly and understandably offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of

2018In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911 , 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).

2017In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911 , 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).

2018In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911 , 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).

2017In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911 , 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).

2013LAWS 4 by 550( 5 ) of 2005,ch. 274, § 103 (effective July 1, 2006).A PRA penalty determination involves a two step inquiry: 1) " - ( determining the appropriate daily penalty amount; and ( ) 2 calculating the number of days the public agency denied the party access to the records." West, 168 Wn.

2013App. 789, 811 , 271 P. d 932, review denied, 174 Wn. d 1010 (2012). 3 2 In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award .... an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy [a wrongfully withheld] public record."RCW 42. 6.A PRA penalty determination 550( 4 5 ). " involves a two step inquiry: 1) - ( determining the appropriate daily penalty amount; and (2) calculating the number of days the public agency denied the party access to the records."West, 168 Wn.

2011First, the trial court conducts a factual inquiry into the person's history and mental condition; second, it determines on a legal basis whether "an objective person knowing the factual circumstances of the individual's history and mental condition would have a reasonable apprehension that the individual's act would cause harm of a sexually violent nature." Marshall, 156 Wash.2d at 158 , 125 P.3d 111 (citing State v. McNutt, 124 Wash.App. 344, 350 , 101 P.3d 422 (2004)). ¶ 41 Here, the State asked the trial court to determine that Durbin's confinement in Clark County was for an act that would

2011First, the trial court conducts a factual inquiry into the person’s history and mental condition; second, it determines on a legal basis whether “an objective person knowing the factual circumstances of the individual’s history and mental condition would have a reasonable apprehension that the individual’s act would cause harm of a sexually violent nature.” Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 (citing State v. McNutt, 124 Wn.

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶ 11 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. [5] First, we determine whether "a provision of th

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶ 11 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. [5] First, we determine whether "a provision of th

2025If the Second Amendment applies to a person, we analyze the claim using the two step test from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 , 142 S. Ct. 2111 , 213 L.

2025If the Second Amendment applies to a person, we analyze the claim using the two step test from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 , 142 S. Ct. 2111 , 213 L.

2024State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991).

2024State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991).

2024In the first step of the analysis, we “review the trial court’s individual evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 726 (2021). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Id. at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2024Ed. 2d 297 (1973); State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010). 20 No. 58252-0-II Appellate courts review alleged violations of the right to present a defense using a two- step framework.

2024State v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641, 648-56 , 389 P.3d 462 (2017).

2024State v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641, 648-56 , 389 P.3d 462 (2017).

2024Ed. 2d 297 (1973); State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010). 20 No. 58252-0-II Appellate courts review alleged violations of the right to present a defense using a two- step framework.

2024In the first step of the analysis, we “review the trial court’s individual evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 726 (2021). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Id. at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2024In the first step of the analysis, we “review the trial court’s individual evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 726 (2021). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Id. at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2024In the first step of the analysis, we “review the trial court’s individual evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 726 (2021). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Id. at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2017I, § 21. 3 In proceedings to commit a person for evaluation and treatment of a mental disorder, “the jury plays an essential role in guarding against wrongful commitment.” In re Quesnell, 83 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 517 P.2d 568 (1973). *615 ¶13 To determine whether the state constitution grants the right to a jury trial in a particular proceeding, we engage in a two step analysis: “First, we determine the scope of the right to a jury trial as it existed at the time of our founding in 1889; second, we determine if the type of action at issue is similar to one that would include the right to a jury tri

2017I, § 21. 3 In proceedings to commit a person for evaluation and treatment of a mental disorder, “the jury plays an essential role in guarding against wrongful commitment.” In re Quesnell, 83 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 517 P.2d 568 (1973). *615 ¶13 To determine whether the state constitution grants the right to a jury trial in a particular proceeding, we engage in a two step analysis: “First, we determine the scope of the right to a jury trial as it existed at the time of our founding in 1889; second, we determine if the type of action at issue is similar to one that would include the right to a jury tri

2017I, § 21. 3 In proceedings to commit a person for evaluation and treatment of a mental disorder, “the jury plays an essential role in guarding against wrongful commitment.” In re Quesnell, 83 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 517 P.2d 568 (1973). *615 ¶13 To determine whether the state constitution grants the right to a jury trial in a particular proceeding, we engage in a two step analysis: “First, we determine the scope of the right to a jury trial as it existed at the time of our founding in 1889; second, we determine if the type of action at issue is similar to one that would include the right to a jury tri

2017I, § 21. 3 In proceedings to commit a person for evaluation and treatment of a mental disorder, “the jury plays an essential role in guarding against wrongful commitment.” In re Quesnell, 83 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 517 P.2d 568 (1973). *615 ¶13 To determine whether the state constitution grants the right to a jury trial in a particular proceeding, we engage in a two step analysis: “First, we determine the scope of the right to a jury trial as it existed at the time of our founding in 1889; second, we determine if the type of action at issue is similar to one that would include the right to a jury tri

2015P' ship; 158 Wn.2d at 575 .

2011RCW 71.09.030(2)(a)(iii) (2009); RCW 71.09.030(2)(b) (2009); former RCW 71.09.030 (2008); see also Marshall, 156 Wash.2d at 156-58 , 125 P.3d 111 ; Henrickson, 140 Wash.2d at 689, 692-93 , 2 P.3d 473 . ¶ 40 The initial determination of whether a person is confined for an act that qualifies as a recent overt act is a two step inquiry.

2010Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 (“The court must either determine from the materials relating to the individual’s conviction whether the individual is incarcerated for an act that actually caused harm of a sexually violent nature, or it must determine whether the individual was incarcerated for an act that qualifies as a recent overt act under a two step analysis described by the Court of Appeals in McNutt.”). 19 Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 . 504 U.S. 71 , 112 S. Ct. 1780 , 118 L.

2010Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 (“The court must either determine from the materials relating to the individual’s conviction whether the individual is incarcerated for an act that actually caused harm of a sexually violent nature, or it must determine whether the individual was incarcerated for an act that qualifies as a recent overt act under a two step analysis described by the Court of Appeals in McNutt.”). 19 Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 . 504 U.S. 71 , 112 S. Ct. 1780 , 118 L.

2007Br. of Appellants at 12 n. 6 (citing Reece, 110 Wash.2d at 770-71 , 757 P.2d 947 ). [16] When presented with a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution, this court engages in a two step inquiry.

2007Br. of Appellants at 12 n. 6 (citing Reece, 110 Wash.2d at 770-71 , 757 P.2d 947 ). [16] When presented with a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution, this court engages in a two step inquiry.