four-step analysis in Washington

2025State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002).

2023When a party seeks to introduce evidence of other misconduct under ER 404(b), the trial court must conduct a four-step inquiry on the record and provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [T]he trial court must (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, (2) identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. misconduct occurred prior to the charged criminal conduct at issue, we use “prior m

2025State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002).

2025State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002).

2007The latter two inquiries, however, are questions of fact ordinarily left to the jury. 114 Wash.2d 373, 382 , 787 P.2d 1366 (1990) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 13 We, therefore, review steps one and two of this four-step analysis de novo as a matter of law.

2007The latter two inquiries, however, are questions of fact ordinarily left to the jury. 114 Wash.2d 373, 382 , 787 P.2d 1366 (1990) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 13 We, therefore, review steps one and two of this four-step analysis de novo as a matter of law.

2025We engage in the following four-step analysis to determine whether the legislature intended to authorize cumulative punishment: “(1) consideration of any express or implicit legislative intent, (2) application of the Blockburger,[3] or ‘same evidence,’ test, (3) application of the ‘merger doctrine,’ and (4) consideration of any independent purpose or effect that would allow punishment as a separate offense.” Id. at 816 (quoting State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771 , 108 P.3d 7583 (2005)).

2025We engage in the following four-step analysis to determine whether the legislature intended to authorize cumulative punishment: “(1) consideration of any express or implicit legislative intent, (2) application of the Blockburger,[3] or ‘same evidence,’ test, (3) application of the ‘merger doctrine,’ and (4) consideration of any independent purpose or effect that would allow punishment as a separate offense.” Id. at 816 (quoting State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771 , 108 P.3d 7583 (2005)).

2024Ashley, 186 Wn.2d at 44 . 14 No. 83738-9-I/15 In this case, the trial court conducted the appropriate four-step analysis on the record and gave a limiting instruction to the jury.

2024App. 492, 498 , 20 P.3d 984 (2001) (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1049 (5th Cir. 1977)). 19 No. 86179-4-I/20 Leonard argues that the State committed misconduct by making an unsupported inference of guilt from the evidence he fled the scene.

2024Discussion 11 This court in Freeburg examined a Fifth Circuit decision that laid out a four-step test to examine the probative value of flight evidence: “the degree of confidence with which four inferences can be drawn: (1) from the defendant's behavior to flight; (2) from flight to consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged; and (4) from consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged.” State v. Freeburg, 105 Wn.

2024Riley, 12 Wn.

2023The trial court’s “analysis must be conducted on the record, and if the evidence is admitted, a limiting instruction is required.” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168, 175 , 163 P.3d 786 (2007)); see also Sullivan, 18 Wn.

2023Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d at 642 (citing Lough, 125 Wn.2d at 853 ); Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d at 257 (“[A] limiting instruction is required.” (citing Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 175 )).

2023When a party seeks to introduce evidence of other misconduct under ER 404(b), the trial court must conduct a four-step inquiry on the record and provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [T]he trial court must (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, (2) identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. misconduct occurred prior to the charged criminal conduct at issue, we use “prior m

2023Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d at 642 (citing Lough, 125 Wn.2d at 853 ); Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d at 257 (“[A] limiting instruction is required.” (citing Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 175 )).

2023The trial court’s “analysis must be conducted on the record, and if the evidence is admitted, a limiting instruction is required.” State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 , 257, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168, 175 , 163 P.3d 786 (2007)); see also Sullivan, 18 Wn.

2021Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 293 (quoting Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652 ).

2021Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 293 (quoting Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652 ).

1995In the present case, White was transferred and, therefore, the defendants may be liable if her right to free speech has been violated. *832 To determine if a public employer has violated an employee’s right to free speech, the court must satisfy a four-step inquiry. 3 Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2616 (1995); Binkley v. Tacoma, 114 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 787 P.2d 1366 (1990).