problem defense in Washington

2009In In re Dependency of O.J., 88 Wn.

2009In In re Dependency of O.J., 88 Wash.App. at 693 , 947 P.2d 252 , the court failed to appoint a GAL.

1976History appears to have proved the wisdom, of Justice Steinerts’ prophetic concern, when he authored the majority opinion in McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 7 Wn.2d 40, 59 , 108 P.2d 807 (1941) (subsequently overruled by Windust v. Department of Labor & Indus., 52 Wn.2d 33 , 323 P.2d 241 (1958)): To say now that some unusual effort or strain is necessary to render death compensable, would not only be in direct conflict with the plain and emphatic language of our holdings, but would also introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, in that every case would present a

1976History appears to have proved the wisdom, of Justice Steinerts’ prophetic concern, when he authored the majority opinion in McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 7 Wn.2d 40, 59 , 108 P.2d 807 (1941) (subsequently overruled by Windust v. Department of Labor & Indus., 52 Wn.2d 33 , 323 P.2d 241 (1958)): To say now that some unusual effort or strain is necessary to render death compensable, would not only be in direct conflict with the plain and emphatic language of our holdings, but would also introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, in that every case would present a

2022Id.

2014The second assignment of error correctly identifies a problem with the instruction on the factors relied upon by the State for its charge of aggravated murder but, for reasons explained below, the error was harmless. 3 "Aggravated first degree murder is not a crime in and of itself," State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 501 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000); instead, "[a] person is guilty of aggravated first degree murder ... ifhe or she commits first degree murder as defined by RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a)" and one or more of 14 statutory aggravating circumstances exists.

2014The second assignment of error correctly identifies a problem with the instruction on the factors relied upon by the State for its charge of aggravated murder but, for reasons explained below, the error was harmless. 3 "Aggravated first degree murder is not a crime in and of itself," State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 501 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000); instead, "[a] person is guilty of aggravated first degree murder ... ifhe or she commits first degree murder as defined by RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a)" and one or more of 14 statutory aggravating circumstances exists.

2009ER 702. ¶ 27 Courts in this state have generally interpreted this as requiring a showing and findings by the trial judge on three things: "(1) the witness qualifies as an expert, (2) the opinion is based upon an explanatory theory generally accepted in the scientific community, and (3) the expert testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact." State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 596 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984).

2009ER 702. ¶ 27 Courts in this state have generally interpreted this as requiring a showing and findings by the trial judge on three things: "(1) the witness qualifies as an expert, (2) the opinion is based upon an explanatory theory generally accepted in the scientific community, and (3) the expert testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact." State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 596 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984).

1976History appears to have proved the wisdom, of Justice Steinerts’ prophetic concern, when he authored the majority opinion in McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 7 Wn.2d 40, 59 , 108 P.2d 807 (1941) (subsequently overruled by Windust v. Department of Labor & Indus., 52 Wn.2d 33 , 323 P.2d 241 (1958)): To say now that some unusual effort or strain is necessary to render death compensable, would not only be in direct conflict with the plain and emphatic language of our holdings, but would also introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, in that every case would present a

1976History appears to have proved the wisdom, of Justice Steinerts’ prophetic concern, when he authored the majority opinion in McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 7 Wn.2d 40, 59 , 108 P.2d 807 (1941) (subsequently overruled by Windust v. Department of Labor & Indus., 52 Wn.2d 33 , 323 P.2d 241 (1958)): To say now that some unusual effort or strain is necessary to render death compensable, would not only be in direct conflict with the plain and emphatic language of our holdings, but would also introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, in that every case would present a

1974The main guidepost for our resolution of the problem is the principle of Bakerihvss v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 701 , 296 P.2d 536 (1956): Under . . . the rule which we adopt here, the employee who accepts a job to which a pension plan is *785 applicable contracts for a substantial pension and is entitled to receive the same when he has fulfilled the prescribed conditions.

1974The main guidepost for our resolution of the problem is the principle of Bakerihvss v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 701 , 296 P.2d 536 (1956): Under . . . the rule which we adopt here, the employee who accepts a job to which a pension plan is *785 applicable contracts for a substantial pension and is entitled to receive the same when he has fulfilled the prescribed conditions.

1966See e.g., Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959); Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Penn. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952); and the leading case of Spalding v. Vilas, supra. We are in accord with the result and underlying reasoning found in these decisions.

1966See e.g., Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959); Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Penn. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952); and the leading case of Spalding v. Vilas, supra . [4] We are in accord with the result and underlying reasoning found in these decisions.

1966See e.g., Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959); Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Penn. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952); and the leading case of Spalding v. Vilas, supra . [4] We are in accord with the result and underlying reasoning found in these decisions.

1966See e.g., Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959); Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Penn. 188 , 88 A.2d 892 (1952); and the leading case of Spalding v. Vilas, supra . [4] We are in accord with the result and underlying reasoning found in these decisions.