party requesting instruction in Washington

2021A party requesting an instruction on an inferior degree offense must show: “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense proscribe but one offense; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 454 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020The party requesting an instruction on an inferior degree offense must show “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense proscribe but one offense; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 454 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)).

2021A party requesting an instruction on an inferior degree offense must show: “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense proscribe but one offense; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 454 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020The party requesting an instruction on an inferior degree offense must show “(1) the statutes for both the charged offense and the proposed inferior degree offense proscribe but one offense; (2) the information charges an offense that is divided into degrees, and the proposed offense is an inferior degree of the charged offense; and (3) there is evidence that the defendant committed only the inferior offense.” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 454 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Peterson, 133 Wn.2d 885, 891 , 948 P.2d 381 (1997)).

2020State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005).

2017Wingate, 155 Wn.2d at 823 n.1 (citing State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000)).

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2020State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005).

2017State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005).

2020App. 64, 71 , 214 P.3d 968 (2009); RCW 10.61.003. 2 RCW 10.61.010. 3 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978). -5- No. 78763-2-I/ 6 necessary element of the charged offense. 4 The second prong, called the factual prong, requires that the evidence “raise an inference that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the charged offense.”5 This court analyzes this question by viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 6 So, “if there is even the slightest evidence that the defendant may have comm

2020App. 64, 71 , 214 P.3d 968 (2009); RCW 10.61.003. 2 RCW 10.61.010. 3 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978). -5- No. 78763-2-I/ 6 necessary element of the charged offense. 4 The second prong, called the factual prong, requires that the evidence “raise an inference that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the charged offense.”5 This court analyzes this question by viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 6 So, “if there is even the slightest evidence that the defendant may have comm

2020Condon, 182 Wn.2d at 316 . 6 No. 52369-8-II When determining if the evidence was sufficient to support the lesser included offense instruction, courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2018"A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense when (1) each of the elements of the lesser included offense is a necessary element of the charged offense and (2)the evidence in the case supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed."2 Courts refer to the first part of the test as the "legal prong" and the second part as the "factual prong."3 The parties agree the legal prong is satisfied.4 We review a trial court's decision under the factual prong for abuse of discretion.5 In determining the factual prong, the panel reviews "the evidence in the light most f

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat

2025State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256 , 267, 458 P.3d 750 (2020).

2025State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256 , 267, 458 P.3d 750 (2020).

2020We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a trial court’s decision to give a first aggressor instruction.8 The first aggressor instruction reflects the general principal that a defendant may not invoke the right to defend himself when he provoked the altercation.9 It is appropriate where a defendant invokes the right to self-defense and there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant created the need to defend himself.10 The party requesting the instruction, here the State, must produce credible evidence to warrant it.11 On appellate review

2015Bea, 162 Wn.

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) "under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense" and (2) "under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed." !d. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). 8 State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a t

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) “under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense” and (2) “under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed.” Id. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). ¶18 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a tactical decision.

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) "under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense" and (2) "under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed." !d. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). 8 State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a t

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) “under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense” and (2) “under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed.” Id. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). ¶18 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a tactical decision.

2014Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 83 . ¶42 Under RCW 9A.76.050, a person “renders criminal assistance” if, with intent to prevent, hinder, or delay the apprehension or prosecution of another person who he or she knows has committed a crime or juvenile offense or is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a crime or juvenile offense or has escaped from a detention facility, he or she: (1) Harbors or conceals such person; or (2) Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or (3) Provides such person with money, transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discov

2014Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 83 .

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) "under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense" and (2) "under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed." !d. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). 8 State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a t

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) “under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense” and (2) “under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed.” Id. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). ¶18 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a tactical decision.

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) "under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense" and (2) "under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed." !d. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). 8 State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a t

2014To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) “under the legal prong, all of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense” and (2) “under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed.” Id. (citing State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 462-63 , 114 P.3d 646 (2005)). ¶18 In State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 39 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), we recognized that whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a tactical decision.

2013CR 51( )( 1); d Balandzich v. Demeroto, 10 Wn.

2013CR 51(d)(1); Balandzich v. Demeroto, 10 Wn.

2009Ward, 125 Wash.App. at 248 , 104 P.3d 670 (citing State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000)).

2009Ward, 125 Wn.

2008It may be that, even unarmed, his size, training, and demeanor make him a deadly weapon and intimidating to others, and that the threat Ryna Ra believed he faced was more than “only an ordinary battery.” Majority at 707 (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 779 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998)). ¶42 Moreover, taken in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, Ra, the record shows that James Huff’s companions unsuccessfully attempted to stop Huff from approaching the sport utility vehicle (SUV), but that he shoved them aside and approached the SUV, yelling, “Let’s get out and fig

2008It may be that, even unarmed, his size, training, and demeanor make him a deadly weapon and intimidating to others, and that the threat Ryna Ra believed he faced was more than "only an ordinary battery." Majority at 616-17 (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wash.2d 767, 779 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998)). ¶ 46 Moreover, taken in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, Ra, the record shows that James Huff's companions unsuccessfully attempted to stop Huff from approaching the sport utility vehicle (SUV), but that he shoved them aside and approached the SUV yelling, "Let's get out an

2008It may be that, even unarmed, his size, training, and demeanor make him a deadly weapon and intimidating to others, and that the threat Ryna Ra believed he faced was more than “only an ordinary battery.” Majority at 707 (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 779 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998)). ¶42 Moreover, taken in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, Ra, the record shows that James Huff’s companions unsuccessfully attempted to stop Huff from approaching the sport utility vehicle (SUV), but that he shoved them aside and approached the SUV, yelling, “Let’s get out and fig

2008It may be that, even unarmed, his size, training, and demeanor make him a deadly weapon and intimidating to others, and that the threat Ryna Ra believed he faced was more than "only an ordinary battery." Majority at 616-17 (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wash.2d 767, 779 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998)). ¶ 46 Moreover, taken in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, Ra, the record shows that James Huff's companions unsuccessfully attempted to stop Huff from approaching the sport utility vehicle (SUV), but that he shoved them aside and approached the SUV yelling, "Let's get out an

2023Coryell, 197 Wn.2d at 415 .

2023Fuller, relies on State v. Brown, 127 Wn.2d 749 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995) to contend that there was not affirmative evidence of fourth degree assault, only testimony that might discredit MH.

2023Fuller, relies on State v. Brown, 127 Wn.2d 749 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995) to contend that there was not affirmative evidence of fourth degree assault, only testimony that might discredit MH.

2022State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). “[A]n erroneous jury instruction is not grounds for reversal unless it affects or presumptively affects the outcome of the trial.” Torno v. Hayek, 133 Wn.