proposed jury instruction in Washington

2018State v. Picard, 90 Wn.

2013State v. Picard, 90 Wn.

2022In re Det. of Pouncy, 168 Wn.2d 382, 390 , 229 P.3d 678 (2010).

2018A triai court’s refusal to give a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion in re Det. of Pouncy, 168 Wn.2d 382, 390 , 229 P.3d 678 (2010). lt is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to give further instructions to a jury after it has begun deiiberations.

2022In re Det. of Pouncy, 168 Wn.2d 382, 390 , 229 P.3d 678 (2010).

2018A triai court’s refusal to give a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion in re Det. of Pouncy, 168 Wn.2d 382, 390 , 229 P.3d 678 (2010). lt is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to give further instructions to a jury after it has begun deiiberations.

2018Walker, 136 Wn.2d at 772 .

2017State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998).

2017State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998).

2016State v. Briqhtman, 155Wn.2d 506, 519, 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998)).

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,

2017State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000).

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

2015State v. Winings, 126 Wn.

2014State v. Winings, 126 Wn.

2018State v. Hanson, 59 Wn.

2013State v. Hanson, 59 Wn.

2014Stiley v. Block, 130 Wn.2d 486, 498 , 925 P. 2d 194 ( 1996).

2002Id.

2026The Supreme Court reasoned that sexual gratification is the level of “[i]ntent . . . relevant to the crime of second degree child molestation because it is necessary to prove the element of sexual contact” and that “[w]ithout the proposed jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, Stevens was [therefore] precluded from arguing his theory of the case to the jury.” Id. at 310 .

2026“Had the jury believed Stevens’ evidence and had they been properly instructed, the jury could reasonably have found Stevens’ intoxication prevented him from acting for the purpose of sexual gratification.” Id.

2025Fergen v. Sestero, 182 Wn.2d 794, 802 , 346 P.3d 708 (2015).

2025Fergen v. Sestero, 182 Wn.2d 794, 802 , 346 P.3d 708 (2015).

2018State v. Green, 182 Wn.

2016State v. Green, 182 Wn.

2017Chunyk & Conley/Quad-C v. Bray, 156 Wn.

2015Chunyk & Conley/Quad-C v. Bray, 156 Wn.

2016App. 85, 88 , 96 P.3d 468 (2004); State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728-29, 732 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). 11 McDonald, 123 Wn.

2014Cf. State v. Tamalini. 134 Wn.2d 725, 730-31 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998) (where the defendant's proposed jury instruction did not contain the words "'inferior degree,'" our Supreme Court nevertheless considered the defendant's assertion on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to give the proposed inferior degree instruction "because the terms 'inferior degree offense' and 'lesser included offense' have often been used interchangeably"). 13 No. 72433-9-1/14 convicted of malicious mischief in the third degree only if he physically damages the property of another.

2014We review de novo the adequacy of challenged jury instructions.15 "'Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly 15 State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (citing State v. DeRvke, 149 Wn.2d 906, 910 , 73 P.3d 1000 (2003)). -11- NO. 70309-9-1/12 inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.'"16 The instruction is erroneous if any of these elements is missing, but an erroneous instruction is reversible error only if it prejudices a party.17 Where jury instructions state the applic

2013The instruction as given read, 1State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005). 2 Bodinv.CitvofStanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726, 732 , 927 P.2d 240 (1996). 3Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Svst., Inc.. 174 Wn.2d 851, 860 , 281 P.3d 289 (2012). 4 Micro Enhancement Int'l.

2014We review de novo the adequacy of challenged jury instructions.15 "'Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly 15 State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005) (citing State v. DeRvke, 149 Wn.2d 906, 910 , 73 P.3d 1000 (2003)). -11- NO. 70309-9-1/12 inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.'"16 The instruction is erroneous if any of these elements is missing, but an erroneous instruction is reversible error only if it prejudices a party.17 Where jury instructions state the applic

2013The instruction as given read, 1State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005). 2 Bodinv.CitvofStanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726, 732 , 927 P.2d 240 (1996). 3Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Svst., Inc.. 174 Wn.2d 851, 860 , 281 P.3d 289 (2012). 4 Micro Enhancement Int'l.

2010Herring v. Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 81 Wash.App. 1, 27 , 914 P.2d 67 (1996).

2010Herring v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 81 Wn.

2006The proposed jury instruction by the State relates to the segregation of damages between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. [2] For example, in Taggart the parole officer was tasked with regulating the parolees' movement and monitoring their use of drugs and alcohol, the failure of both of which led to the parolees' attacks on the victims. 118 Wash.2d at 200-03 , 822 P.2d 243 . [3] The dissent refers us to Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 259-60 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965) (analogizing the treatment, management, and care of delinquent children committed to its custody

2006The proposed jury instruction by the State relates to the segregation of damages between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. [2] For example, in Taggart the parole officer was tasked with regulating the parolees' movement and monitoring their use of drugs and alcohol, the failure of both of which led to the parolees' attacks on the victims. 118 Wash.2d at 200-03 , 822 P.2d 243 . [3] The dissent refers us to Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 259-60 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965) (analogizing the treatment, management, and care of delinquent children committed to its custody

2020State v. Ehrhardt, 167 Wn.

2019State v. Ayala Ponce, 166 Wn.

2019“When considering whether a proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence, the trial court must examine the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the requesting party.” Webb, 162 Wn.

2018State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 42 , 750 P.Zd 632 (1988).

2018In Bergen, an SVP appealed the trial court’s refusal to give a proposed jury instruction defining “adequate community safety.” 146 Wn.

2018State v. Hummel, 165 Wn.

2017State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995).

2017The court noted that this evidence is relevant because the threat of a new SVP petition would have “some tendency to diminish the likelihood of [respondent] committing another predatory act of sexual violence.” Id. at 317 . ¶52 However, Post did not require that a trial court give a proposed jury instruction regarding the possibility of a new SVP petition and in fact did not address jury instructions at all.

2017In Staley, the court addressed a proposed jury instruction stating that fleeting, momentary, temporary, or unwitting possession is not unlawful. 123 Wn.2d at 798 .

2017The court stated that the State must prove more than a passing control to establish actual possession, but also noted that a momentary handling may support a finding of possession. 123 Wn.2d at 801-02 .

2017State v. Hathaway, 161 Wn.