party that requested instruction in Washington

2026App. 570, 577 , 254 P.3d 948 (2011). “ ‘[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’ ” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 270 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n. 1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005)).

2021Moreover, “when determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is 4 No. 79368-3-I/5 to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005).

2026App. 570, 577 , 254 P.3d 948 (2011). “ ‘[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’ ” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 270 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n. 1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005)).

2021Moreover, “when determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is 4 No. 79368-3-I/5 to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005).

2009It is error to give an instruction not supported by the evidence." Warden, 133 Wash.2d at 563 , 947 P.2d 708 . ¶ 31 We must "view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction." But "the evidence must affirmatively establish the defendant's theory of the case—it is not enough that the jury might disbelieve the evidence pointing to guilt." Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d at 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 . ¶ 32 In Fernandez-Medina, the defendant entered an apartment where his ex-girlfriend was visiting friends, Wayne Butler and Dorothy Perkins, and he began

2009It is error to give an instruction not supported by the evidence.” Warden, 133 Wn.2d at 563 . ¶31 We must “view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 456 .

2024When determining on appeal whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a lesser degree instruction, we “view[] the ‘supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’ ” Coryell, 197 Wn.2d at 415 (quoting Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 455-56 ).

2023When determining on appeal whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a lesser degree instruction, we “view the ‘supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’ ” Coryell, 197 Wn.2d at 415 (quoting Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 455-56 ).

2024Specifically, “a requested jury instruction on a lesser included or inferior degree offense should be administered ‘if the evidence would permit a jury to rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.’ ” Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 456 (quoting State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559, 563 , 947 P.2d 708 (1997)).

2009It is error to give an instruction not supported by the evidence." Warden, 133 Wash.2d at 563 , 947 P.2d 708 . ¶ 31 We must "view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction." But "the evidence must affirmatively establish the defendant's theory of the case—it is not enough that the jury might disbelieve the evidence pointing to guilt." Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d at 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 . ¶ 32 In Fernandez-Medina, the defendant entered an apartment where his ex-girlfriend was visiting friends, Wayne Butler and Dorothy Perkins, and he began

2020When this court reviews first aggressor instructions, we apply the same standards that we use to review other jury instructions. '"Jury instructions are sufficient ifthey permit each party to argue his theory of the case and properly inform the jury of the applicable law.'" Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 909 (quoting State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 809 , 802 P.2d 116 (1990)). "[Wjhen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction."

2020App. 577 . “[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” While we have cautioned that “courts should use care in giving an aggressor instruction,” we have also recognized that “an aggressor instruction should be given where called for by the evidence.” Grott, 458 P.3d at 757 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005), and State v Riley, 137

2026“When the appellate court determines if the evidence at trial is sufficient to support an instruction, it views the ‘supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’” Id. at 415 (quoting State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 43 No. 59315-7-II 1150 (2000)).

2023“When the appellate court determines if the evidence at trial is sufficient to support an instruction, it views the ‘supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’” Id. at 415 (quoting State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000)).

2025State v. Bea, 162 Wn.

2017Bea, 162 Wn.

2021A trial court does not err by giving a first aggressor instruction “[w]here there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant provoked the need to act in self-defense.” State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904, 909-10 , 976 P.2d 624 (1999).

2020App. 577 . “[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” While we have cautioned that “courts should use care in giving an aggressor instruction,” we have also recognized that “an aggressor instruction should be given where called for by the evidence.” Grott, 458 P.3d at 757 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005), and State v Riley, 137

2019Ponce, 166 Wn.

2018State v. Ponce, 166 Wn.

2024State v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 736 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015). “[A] requested jury instruction on a lesser included or inferior degree offense should be administered ‘if the evidence would permit a jury to rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.’ ” State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 456 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (quoting State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559 , 5 The State does not directly respond to Hoskins’s argument as to the legal prong under Workman and focuses instead on the factual prong. 7 No. 84939-5-I/8 563, 947 P.2d 708 (1997)).

2018When evaluating whether the evidence supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed, we review the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction." Henderson, 182 Wn.2d at 742 .

2026“When the appellate court determines if the evidence at trial is sufficient to support an instruction, it views the ‘supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’” Id. at 415 (quoting State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 43 No. 59315-7-II 1150 (2000)).

2026“Defendants are entitled to the benefit of all the evidence presented at trial, regardless of whether they were the introducing party.” Id.

2026App. 570, 577 , 254 P.3d 948 (2011). “ ‘[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.’ ” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 270 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n. 1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005)).

2026When a voluntary intoxication instruction is sought, a defendant must show “(1) the crime charged has as an element a particular mental state, (2) there is substantial evidence of drinking, and (3) evidence that the drinking affected the defendant’s ability to acquire the required mental state.” State v. Gabryschak, 83 Wn.

2020When this court reviews first aggressor instructions, we apply the same standards that we use to review other jury instructions. '"Jury instructions are sufficient ifthey permit each party to argue his theory of the case and properly inform the jury of the applicable law.'" Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 909 (quoting State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 809 , 802 P.2d 116 (1990)). "[Wjhen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction."

2020When this court reviews first aggressor instructions, we apply the same standards that we use to review other jury instructions. '"Jury instructions are sufficient ifthey permit each party to argue his theory of the case and properly inform the jury of the applicable law.'" Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 909 (quoting State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 809 , 802 P.2d 116 (1990)). "[Wjhen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction."

2020In Grott, the court clarified that “an act of first aggression is an ‘intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response’ by the victim, while lawful self-defense requires a ‘subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim.’” 458 P.3d at 758 (quoting 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 16.04, at 256 (4th ed. 2016), and State v. LeFarber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 899 , 913 P.2d 369 (1996), abrogated on other grounds by State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). “[T]he reason one generally cannot claim self-defense when one is a

2020In Grott, the court clarified that “an act of first aggression is an ‘intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response’ by the victim, while lawful self-defense requires a ‘subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim.’” 458 P.3d at 758 (quoting 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 16.04, at 256 (4th ed. 2016), and State v. LeFarber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 899 , 913 P.2d 369 (1996), abrogated on other grounds by State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). “[T]he reason one generally cannot claim self-defense when one is a

2020In Grott, the court clarified that “an act of first aggression is an ‘intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response’ by the victim, while lawful self-defense requires a ‘subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim.’” 458 P.3d at 758 (quoting 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 16.04, at 256 (4th ed. 2016), and State v. LeFarber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 899 , 913 P.2d 369 (1996), abrogated on other grounds by State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). “[T]he reason one generally cannot claim self-defense when one is a

2020In Grott, the court clarified that “an act of first aggression is an ‘intentional act reasonably likely to provoke a belligerent response’ by the victim, while lawful self-defense requires a ‘subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim.’” 458 P.3d at 758 (quoting 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 16.04, at 256 (4th ed. 2016), and State v. LeFarber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 899 , 913 P.2d 369 (1996), abrogated on other grounds by State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). “[T]he reason one generally cannot claim self-defense when one is a

2019Sullivan, 196 Wn.

2018“A trial court’s decision about whether to instruct on a lesser-degree offense involves the application of law to facts, which we review de novo.” Corey, 181 Wn.

2016Id. at 455-56 .

2016When a trial court bases its decision to include or omit a jury instruction on a factual determination, we review for abuse of discretion.1 To determine if the record includes sufficient evidence to support the giving of an instruction, we review the evidence supporting a proposed jury instruction in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.2 A person is guilty of arson in the first degree if he knowingly and maliciously causes a fire or explosion which damages a dwelling.3 A "dwelling" includes "any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion t

2016When a trial court bases its decision to include or omit a jury instruction on a factual determination, we review for abuse of discretion.1 To determine if the record includes sufficient evidence to support the giving of an instruction, we review the evidence supporting a proposed jury instruction in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.2 A person is guilty of arson in the first degree if he knowingly and maliciously causes a fire or explosion which damages a dwelling.3 A "dwelling" includes "any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion t

2016No. 72452-5-1 / 5 of an attempt to commit the offense, and not guilty of the charged offense.7 In all other cases, the defendant "may be found guilty of an offense the commission of which is necessarily included within that with which he or she is charged."8 A trial court should give a proposed jury instruction on a lesser included or inferior degree offense if the evidence would "'permit a jury to rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.'"9 The proposing party must satisfy both a legal and factual requirement.10 To satisfy the legal requirement,

2014But "the evidence must affinnatively establish the defendant's theory of the case-it is not enough that the jury might disbelieve the evidence pointing to guilt." Id. (citing State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 67 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Blair, 117 Wn.2d 479 , 816 P.2d 718 (1991 )).

2014But "the evidence must affinnatively establish the defendant's theory of the case-it is not enough that the jury might disbelieve the evidence pointing to guilt." Id. (citing State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 67 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Blair, 117 Wn.2d 479 , 816 P.2d 718 (1991 )).

2004Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d at 729, 732 ; State v. Ieremia, 78 Wn.