self-defense jury instruction in Washington

21 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. LeFaberred wash · 1996 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–2009 2 sentences 2009In LeFaber , the trial court provided a self-defense jury instruction that was ambiguous as to whether the State had to disprove the defendant reasonably believed there was imminent danger of harm or that there was actually imminent danger of harm. 128 Wash.2d at 899 , 913 P.2d 369 . 2009In LeFaber , the trial court provided a self-defense jury instruction that was ambiguous as to whether the State had to disprove the defendant reasonably believed there was imminent danger of harm or that there was actually imminent danger of harm. 128 Wn.2d at 899 .	2	3
State v. O'Haragreen wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 101 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2014O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 101-04 (whether error in a self-defense jury instruction is constitutional requires a case by case analysis).	1	3
State v. Kyllogreen wash · 2009 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2025 2 sentences 2025See Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d at 863 . 2012RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009) (citing State v. L.B., 132 Wn.	1	2
State v. Cienfuegosgreen wash · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 227 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001).	1	1
State v. Cienfuegosgreen wash · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 227 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001).	1	1
State v. Wernergreen wash · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024In Werner, the Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction after his gun accidentally went off while seven dogs were circling him. 170 Wn.2d at 336, 338 .	1	1
State v. Brousseaugreen wash · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	1
State v. Pottorffgreen washctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See State v. Pottorff, 138 Wn.	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 (23)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. McCullum green wash · 1983 2 sentences 2018Legal Principles A defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when there is “some evidence admitted in the case from whatever source which tends to prove [that an act was committed] in self-defense.” State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 488 , 656 P.2d 1064 (1983). 2018Legal Principles A defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when there is “some evidence admitted in the case from whatever source which tends to prove [that an act was committed] in self-defense.” State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 488 , 656 P.2d 1064 (1983).	3	2009–2018
State v. O'HARA green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2025State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 101 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2015State v. Q'Hara. 167 Wn.2d 91, 101 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009) (as amended by order dated Jan. 21, 2010).	2	2015–2025
State v. Mills green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2009The majority also acknowledges the constitution "`requires the jury be instructed as to each element of the offense charged,'" and "[t]his requirement also applies to a self-defense jury instruction." Id. 768 (quoting State v. Fowler, 114 Wash.2d 59, 69-70 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990)). ¶ 47 The majority essentially justifies its result by claiming that "the failure of the trial court to provide the complete statutory definition of `malice' was, at most, a failure to further define one of the elements." Majority at 764. 2009*The majority also acknowledges the constitution “ ‘requires the jury be instructed as to each element of the offense charged,’ ” and “[t]his requirement also applies to a self-defense jury instruction.” Id. (quoting State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 69-70 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990)). ¶49 The majority essentially justifies its result by claiming that “the failure of the trial court to provide the complete statutory definition of ‘malice’ was, at most, a failure to further define one of the elements.” Id. at 105-06 .	2	2009–2009
State v. Fowler green wash · 1990 2 sentences 2009The majority also acknowledges the constitution “ ‘requires the jury be instructed as to each element of the offense charged,’ ” and “[t]his requirement also applies to a self-defense jury instruction.” Id. (quoting State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 69-70 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990)). ¶49 The majority essentially justifies its result by claiming that “the failure of the trial court to provide the complete statutory definition of ‘malice’ was, at most, a failure to further define one of the elements.” Id. at 105-06 . 2009The majority also acknowledges the constitution “ ‘requires the jury be instructed as to each element of the offense charged,’ ” and “[t]his requirement also applies to a self-defense jury instruction.” Id. (quoting State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 69-70 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990)). ¶49 The majority essentially justifies its result by claiming that “the failure of the trial court to provide the complete statutory definition of ‘malice’ was, at most, a failure to further define one of the elements.” Id. at 105-06 .	2	2009–2009
State v. Acosta green wash · 1984 2 sentences 2009See LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d at 898 ; McCullum, 98 Wn.2d at 488 ; State v. Acosta, 101 Wn.2d 612, 622 , 683 P.2d 1069 (1984) (stating, “the test is whether the jury was informed, or could understand from the instructions as a whole, that the State bears the burden of proof”). 2009See LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d at 898 ; McCullum, 98 Wn.2d at 488 ; State v. Acosta, 101 Wn.2d 612, 622 , 683 P.2d 1069 (1984) (stating, “the test is whether the jury was informed, or could understand from the instructions as a whole, that the State bears the burden of proof”).	2	2009–2009
State v. Wanrow green wash · 1977 2 sentences 2009Examining the cases cited by LeFaber and the underlying logic for the blanket rule, we hold LeFaber’s per se rule is no longer justified and appellate courts should determine on a case-by-case basis whether an unpreserved claim of error regarding a self-defense jury instruction constitutes a manifest constitutional error. ¶20 In stating erroneous self-defense jury instructions are constitutional and presumed prejudicial, the LeFaber court relied upon two cases: McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 and State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 237 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977). 2009Examining the cases cited by LeFaber and the underlying logic for the blanket rule, we hold LeFaber’s per se rule is no longer justified and appellate courts should determine on a case-by-case basis whether an unpreserved claim of error regarding a self-defense jury instruction constitutes a manifest constitutional error. ¶20 In stating erroneous self-defense jury instructions are constitutional and presumed prejudicial, the LeFaber court relied upon two cases: McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 and State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 237 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977).	2	2009–2009
State v. Theroff green wash · 1980 2 sentences 1999State v. Theroff, 95 Wash.2d 385, 390 , 622 P.2d 1240 (1980). 1999State v. Theroff, 95 Wash.2d 385, 390 , 622 P.2d 1240 (1980).	2	1999–1999
State v. Fisher green wash · 2016 2 sentences 2026State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 849 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016). 2026State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 849 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016).	1	2026–2026
State v. Brown green washctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2026The law and analysis presented above indicate that a self-defense strategy in response to verbal provocation would “reasonably appear unlikely to succeed.” See Brown, 159 Wn.	1	2026–2026
Bruce v. Bruce green wash · 1956 2 sentences 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	2022–2022
Glazer v. Adams green wash · 1964 2 sentences 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	2022–2022
State v. Williams green wash · 1966 2 sentences 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	2022–2022
Enyeart v. Borgeson green wash · 1962 2 sentences 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	2022–2022
State v. Brousseau green wash · 2011 1 sentence 2022Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 40-46. 18 Kitt, No. 49534-1-II, slip op. at 28. 19 Pet’r’s Br. at 38-39; Reply Br. at 7-8. 20 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d 331, 353 , 259 P.3d 209 (2011) (quoting RAP 10.3(a)(6)). 21 State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 952 , 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (citing Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wn.2d 144 , 391 P.2d 195 (1964); Enyeart v. Borgeson, 60 Wn.2d 494 , 374 P.2d 543 (1962); Bruce v. Bruce, 48 Wn.2d 229 , 292 P.2d 1060 (1956)); see Brousseau, 172 Wn.2d at 353 (declining to review an issue because the defendant failed to identify where the alleged error could be found). 5 No. 8	1	2022–2022
State v. Callahan green washctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2021The court held that a self-defense jury instruction is permitted when the evidence shows “the defendant had a reasonable fear of the victim, intentionally pointed the gun at the victim, used a reasonable amount of force, and was not the aggressor.” Callahan, 87 Wn. 2021But KDP’s reliance on Callahan is misplaced because the Callahan court was deciding whether a self-defense jury instruction is available to a defendant who intentionally displays a gun but then accidentally fires it; the court was not deciding whether the findings of fact supported conclusions of law. 87 Wn.	1	2021–2021
State v. McCreven green washctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2020RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. McCreven, 170 Wn.	1	2020–2020
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.	1	2020–2020
State v. Ponce green washctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2015State v. Ponce, 166 Wn.	1	2015–2015
State v. Walden green wash · 1997 1 sentence 2015State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 473 , 932 P.2d 1237 (1997).	1	2015–2015
State v. Walden green wash · 1997 1 sentence 2015State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 473 , 932 P.2d 1237 (1997).	1	2015–2015
State v. Bailey green washctapp · 1979 1 sentence 2012App. 646, 650 , 591 P.2d 1212 (1979)). ¶26 Here, the trial court gave the following self-defense jury instruction patterned after 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 16.02, at 234 (3d ed. 2008) (WPIC): It is a defense to a charge of murder in the second degree that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction.	1	2012–2012
State v. Kyllo green wash · 2009	1	2012–2012
State v. L.B. green washctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2012RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009) (citing State v. L.B., 132 Wn.	1	2012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (12) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.110 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.020 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.021 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.533 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011 (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.

Where else courts name it

OH 46 (2002–2026) WA 21 (1997–2026) IL 17 (2014–2026) FL 13 (2005–2024) NM 13 (2001–2024) UT 11 (2002–2026) MS 10 (1995–2022) CO 10 (1990–2026) MO 9 (2001–2024) TX 9 (2009–2023) WI 7 (1982–2026) MI 7 (2015–2023) MN 6 (2014–2026) DC 6 (1990–2008) IN 6 (2011–2019) NV 6 (2017–2026) ND 5 (1993–2021) ME 4 (2002–2019) NC 4 (2022–2025) PA 4 (2019–2024) WV 3 (2006–2026) NE 2 (2019–2020) ID 2 (2015–2025) LA 2 (2007–2013) OR 2 (2012–2017) GA 2 (2016–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check