manifest error in Washington

2026To constitute a manifest error, there must be “a nearly explicit statement by the witness that the witness believed the accusing victim.” Id.

2026No Washington Supreme Court case “has held that a manifest error infringing a constitutional right necessarily exists where a witness expresses an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact that is 7 not objected to at trial.” Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 935. “ ‘Manifest error’ requires a nearly explicit statement by the witness that the witness believed the accusing victim.” Id.at 936.

2026To raise a manifest error affecting a constitutional right on appeal, “‘the appellant must identify a constitutional error and show how the alleged error actually affected the [appellant]’s rights.’” State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)).

2026To raise a manifest error affecting a constitutional right on appeal, “‘the appellant must identify a constitutional error and show how the alleged error actually affected the [appellant]’s rights.’” State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)).

2026Harmless Error Even where a manifest error of constitutional magnitude exists under RAP 2.5(a)(3), the rule “does not help a defendant when the asserted constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 687 .

2025Washington courts and even decisions internally have announced differing formulations for “manifest error.” First, a manifest error is one “truly of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988).

2020Gordon, 172 Wn.2d at 676 .; State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333-34 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). 14 Here, Salas neither argues nor shows that the alleged error was a manifest error.

2020Gordon, 172 Wn.2d at 676 .; State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333-34 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). 14 Here, Salas neither argues nor shows that the alleged error was a manifest error.

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2021A manifest error is “‘unmistakable, evident or indisputable.’” State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204, 224 , 181 P.3d 1 (2008) (quoting State v. Lynn, 67 Wn.

2021A manifest error is “‘unmistakable, evident or indisputable.’” State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204, 224 , 181 P.3d 1 (2008) (quoting State v. Lynn, 67 Wn.

2018In order to claim a manifest error affecting a constitutional right, the party "must Identify the constitutional error and show that it actually affected his or her rights at trial." This requires the party to "make a plausible showing that the error resulted in actual prejudice, which means that the claimed error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial."80 "If the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not manifest."' After the jury was seated, the trial court instructed it that "Ninth you

2018In order to claim a manifest error affecting a constitutional right, the party "must Identify the constitutional error and show that it actually affected his or her rights at trial." This requires the party to "make a plausible showing that the error resulted in actual prejudice, which means that the claimed error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial."80 "If the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not manifest."' After the jury was seated, the trial court instructed it that "Ninth you

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2025“Being charged and convicted under an unconstitutional statute is a manifest error effecting [sic] a constitutional right.” State v. Koch, 34 Wn. App. 2d 232, 236, 567 P.3d 653 (2025).

2025“Being charged and convicted under an unconstitutional statue is a manifest error effecting a constitutional right.” State v. Koch, 34 Wn.

2020Under RAP 2.5(a)(3), a defendant may claim a manifest error affecting a constitutional right for the first time on appeal. “[A] claim that a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement was involuntary due to a misunderstanding about the standard range sentence is the kind of constitutional error that RAP 2.5(a)(3) encompasses.” State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1, 8 , 17 P.3d 591 (2001).

2020Under RAP 2.5(a)(3), a defendant may claim a manifest error affecting a constitutional right for the first time on appeal. “[A] claim that a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement was involuntary due to a misunderstanding about the standard range sentence is the kind of constitutional error that RAP 2.5(a)(3) encompasses.” State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1, 8 , 17 P.3d 591 (2001).

2008See McDonald, 138 Wash.2d at 691 , 981 P.2d 443 .

2008See McDonald, 138 Wn.2d at 691 .

2015State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , 899 -901, 161 P. 3d 982 ( 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 , 271 P. 3d 876 ( 2012); RAP 2. 5( a)( 3). 7 45115 -8 -II The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused person the right to confront adverse witnesses.

2015State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , 899 -901, 161 P. 3d 982 ( 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 , 271 P. 3d 876 ( 2012); RAP 2. 5( a)( 3). 7 45115 -8 -II The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused person the right to confront adverse witnesses.

2026To raise a manifest error affecting a constitutional right on appeal, “‘the appellant must identify a constitutional error and show how the alleged error actually affected the [appellant]’s rights.’” State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)).

2026To raise a manifest error affecting a constitutional right on appeal, “‘the appellant must identify a constitutional error and show how the alleged error actually affected the [appellant]’s rights.’” State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)).

2020RAP 2.5(a)(3). 3 52852-5-II To show a manifest error affecting a constitutional right under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we utilize a two-part test: “‘(1) [h]as the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)).

2020RAP 2.5(a)(3). 3 52852-5-II To show a manifest error affecting a constitutional right under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we utilize a two-part test: “‘(1) [h]as the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)).

2020Generally, this court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. 1 But, a party may raise an error for the first time on appeal if it concerns a manifest error affecting a constitutional right. 2 “The defendant has the initial burden of showing that (1) the error was ‘truly of constitutional dimension’ and (2) the error was ‘manifest.’” 3 “A defendant cannot simply assert that an error occurred at trial and label the error ‘constitutional.’” 4 “The defendant must identify a constitutional error and show how, in the context of the trial, the alleged error actually affected th

2013For the first time in his reply brief in this court, Kohlwes asks us to 6 Kohlwes does not challenge the court's conclusion stating, "Upon contacting the Defendant, Deputy Phillips developed the reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was driving under the influence of a controlled substance." CP 101. -6- 68422-1-1/7 review the search warrant issue as a manifest error affecting a constitutional right under RAP 2.5(a)(3).7 To benefit from RAP 2.5(a)'s manifest constitutional error exception, "[t]he defendant has the initial burden of showing that (1) the error was 'truly of constitutional dimen

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2019E.g., State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 304 , 253 P.3d 84 (2011)("The general rule in Washington is that a party's failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a '"manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'"" (quoting State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823 , 203 P.3d 1044 (2009)(quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)))); State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 361-62 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002)("it cannot be said that the apparent inconsistency ofthe verdicts is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right . .

2020RAP 2.5(a)(3). 3 52852-5-II To show a manifest error affecting a constitutional right under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we utilize a two-part test: “‘(1) [h]as the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)).

2020RAP 2.5(a)(3). 3 52852-5-II To show a manifest error affecting a constitutional right under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we utilize a two-part test: “‘(1) [h]as the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)).

2015Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 77; RAP 2.5(a)(3).

2015Id. at 36-37 .

2015State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , 899 -901, 161 P. 3d 982 ( 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 , 271 P. 3d 876 ( 2012); RAP 2. 5( a)( 3). 7 45115 -8 -II The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused person the right to confront adverse witnesses.

2015State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , 899 -901, 161 P. 3d 982 ( 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 , 271 P. 3d 876 ( 2012); RAP 2. 5( a)( 3). 7 45115 -8 -II The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused person the right to confront adverse witnesses.