remedial instruction in Washington

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wash.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wash.2d at 552 , 973 P.2d 1049 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd's holding to be that "those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error" (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) ("Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may n

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wn.2d at 552 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wn.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd’s holding to be that “those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error” (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wn.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not request that instruct

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wash.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wash.2d at 552 , 973 P.2d 1049 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd's holding to be that "those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error" (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) ("Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may n

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wn.2d at 552 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wn.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd’s holding to be that “those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error” (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wn.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not request that instruct

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wash.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wash.2d at 552 , 973 P.2d 1049 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd's holding to be that "those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error" (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) ("Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may n

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wn.2d at 552 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wn.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd’s holding to be that “those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error” (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wn.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not request that instruct

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wash.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wash.2d at 552 , 973 P.2d 1049 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd's holding to be that "those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error" (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) ("Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may n

2010See State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867, 867-71 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990); see also Studd, 137 Wn.2d at 552 (allowing the defendant to escape the doctrine if he also proposed an instruction correcting the error); City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wn.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (interpreting Studd’s holding to be that “those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error” (emphasis added)); State v. Aho, 137 Wn.2d 736, 744-45 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not request that instruct

2005App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 845 ). ¶25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2005Informing the jury that the defendant was subject to physical restraints is "`inherently prejudicial'" because restraints are "`unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large.'" State v. Jaquez, 105 Wash.App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (quoting Finch, 137 Wash.2d at 845 , 975 P.2d 967 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2005App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 845 ). ¶25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2005Informing the jury that the defendant was subject to physical restraints is "`inherently prejudicial'" because restraints are "`unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large.'" State v. Jaquez, 105 Wash.App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (quoting Finch, 137 Wash.2d at 845 , 975 P.2d 967 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2022State v. Jones, 13 Wn.

2016In Thierrv, the court quoted the above passage in Powell and noted that the resulting prejudice was held incurably prejudicial “even though Powell had not requested a remedial instruction in the trial court.” Thierry, 190 Wn.

2016In Thierry , the court quoted the above passage in Powell and noted that the resulting prejudice was held incurably prejudicial “even though Powell had not requested a remedial instruction in the trial court.” Thierry, 190 Wn.

2015Powell, 62 Wn.

2014An appellant claiming prosecutorial misconduct must show both improper conduct and State 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012).

2014An appellant claiming prosecutorial misconduct must show both improper conduct and State 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012).

2014Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 760 -61.

2005Informing the jury that the defendant was subject to physical restraints is "`inherently prejudicial'" because restraints are "`unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large.'" State v. Jaquez, 105 Wash.App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (quoting Finch, 137 Wash.2d at 845 , 975 P.2d 967 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2005Informing the jury that the defendant was subject to physical restraints is "`inherently prejudicial'" because restraints are "`unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large.'" State v. Jaquez, 105 Wash.App. 699, 709 , 20 P.3d 1035 (2001) (quoting Finch, 137 Wash.2d at 845 , 975 P.2d 967 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 25 In the usual case, a remedial instruction is required to cure an inadvertent juror sighting of a defendant in restraints.

2005Recuenco, 117 Wash. App. 1079 , 2003 WL 21738927 , at *5 n. 33 (citing City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash.2d 717, 720 , 58 P.3d 273 (2002) and stating that if "defendants propose erroneous instructions that do not include all elements of a crime, but do not attempt to add a remedial instruction, they invite the error and cannot complain on appeal.").