Walker test in Washington

2015The question before us is whether, in light of the "lesser showing" required under Fierro, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Walker's motion.6 Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 846 .

2015The question before us is whether, in light of the “lesser showing” required under Fierro , the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Walker’s motion. 6 Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 846 .

2015Prosecutorial misconduct violated Walker's right to a fair trial Walker argues that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct primarily in the PowerPoint presentation used during closing argument. 3 We recently addressed this very same issue in Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 , and it is regrettable that some prosecutors continue to defend these practices and the 1 Because we reverse Walker's convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct, we do not reach Walker's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 2 In its supplemental brief, the State reasserts the cross assignment of error

2015Prosecutorial misconduct violated Walker's right to a fair trial Walker argues that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct primarily in the PowerPoint presentation used during closing argument. 3 We recently addressed this very same issue in Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 , and it is regrettable that some prosecutors continue to defend these practices and the 1 Because we reverse Walker's convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct, we do not reach Walker's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 2 In its supplemental brief, the State reasserts the cross assignment of error

2011Walker, 136 Wn.2d at 770 . ¶22 Applying the Walker test here, we examine whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as George did in his situation.

2011Walker, 136 Wn.2d at 770 . ¶22 Applying the Walker test here, we examine whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as George did in his situation.

2008Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Bingham, 30 Wash. 484, 487 , 71 P. 43 (1902) (holding that the transfer of stolen property conveys no title and the purchaser has no right to retain it). ¶29 Because we hold that Walker’s offenses were not the same criminal conduct, Walker’s defense counsel had no need to argue that his convictions for first degree theft and first degree trafficking in stolen property were the same criminal conduct for purposes of calculating his offender score.

2008Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Bingham, 30 Wash. 484, 487 , 71 P. 43 (1902) (holding that the transfer of stolen property conveys no title and the purchaser has no right to retain it). ¶29 Because we hold that Walker’s offenses were not the same criminal conduct, Walker’s defense counsel had no need to argue that his convictions for first degree theft and first degree trafficking in stolen property were the same criminal conduct for purposes of calculating his offender score.

2021First, it argues that the 10-day rule to object to a time for trial violation does not apply when there are fewer than 10 days left before the expiration of the time for trial period, citing State v. Austin, 59 Wn.

2021A. Timeliness of Objection under State v. Austin Relying on State v. Austin, 59 Wn.

2016The denial of Walker's motion is thus not "manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds . . . ." Powell, 126 Wn.2d at 258 .

2015Because no case expressly finds such a right in the Washington Constitution, Walker relies primarily on California cases as persuasive authority in support of his claim. 4 But even if we were to follow the cited cases and find such a right under our state constitution, we conclude that Walker would not be entitled to the relief he seeks. 114 In People v. Fierro, 1 Cal. 4th 173 , 821 P.2d 1302 , 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 426 (1991), the defendant was sentenced to death after being convicted by a jury of first degree murder and two counts of robbery.

2015Because no case expressly finds such a right in the Washington Constitution, Walker relies primarily on California cases as persuasive authority in support of his claim. 4 But even if we were to follow the cited cases and find such a right under our state constitution, we conclude that Walker would not be entitled to the relief he seeks. 114 In People v. Fierro, 1 Cal. 4th 173 , 821 P.2d 1302 , 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 426 (1991), the defendant was sentenced to death after being convicted by a jury of first degree murder and two counts of robbery.

2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal).

2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal).

2011Walker, 136 Wash.2d at 770 , 966 P.2d 883 . ¶ 22 Applying the Walker test here, we examine whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as George did in his situation.

2011Walker, 136 Wash.2d at 770 , 966 P.2d 883 . ¶ 22 Applying the Walker test here, we examine whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as George did in his situation.

1961The statutory requirement of notice by mail was added in 1953 to satisfy the test in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 , 94 L.

1961The statutory requirement of notice by mail was added in 1953 to satisfy the test in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 , 94 L.