opportunity to correct any error in Washington

2024CrR 6.15(c) provides, in part: “The party objecting shall state the reasons for the objection, specifying the number, paragraph, and particular part of the instruction to be given or refused.” A party who objects to the inclusion or exclusion of an instruction must “state distinctly the matter to which counsel objects and the grounds of counsel’s objection.” Millies v. LandAmerica Transnation, 185 Wn.2d 302, 310 , 372 10 No. 39475-1-III State v. Goff P.3d 111 (2016) (quoting CR 51(f)). “[T]he purpose of the rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to know and clearly understand the nat

2024CrR 6.15(c) provides, in part: “The party objecting shall state the reasons for the objection, specifying the number, paragraph, and particular part of the instruction to be given or refused.” A party who objects to the inclusion or exclusion of an instruction must “state distinctly the matter to which counsel objects and the grounds of counsel’s objection.” Millies v. LandAmerica Transnation, 185 Wn.2d 302, 310 , 372 10 No. 39475-1-III State v. Goff P.3d 111 (2016) (quoting CR 51(f)). “[T]he purpose of the rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to know and clearly understand the nat

2025“A party must inform the court of the rules of law it wishes the court to apply and afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn.

2025App. 2d 309 , 315, 544 P.3d 1099 (2024). “‘A party must inform 6 Nos. 59204-5-II, 59214-2-II the court of the rules of law it wishes the court to apply and afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn.

2025App. 2d 309 , 315, 544 P.3d 1099 (2024). “‘A party must inform 6 Nos. 59204-5-II, 59214-2-II the court of the rules of law it wishes the court to apply and afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn.

2025App. 2d 309 , 315, 544 P.3d 1099 (2024). “‘A party must inform 6 Nos. 59204-5-II, 59214-2-II the court of the rules of law it wishes the court to apply and afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error.’” Id. (quoting State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn.

2024A party must inform the court of the rules of law it wishes the court to apply and afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error.” (citation omitted)), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1008 (2016); Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 926 (“A party may assign evidentiary error on appeal only on a specific ground made at trial.

2024CrR 6.15(c) provides, in part: “The party objecting shall state the reasons for the objection, specifying the number, paragraph, and particular part of the instruction to be given or refused.” A party who objects to the inclusion or exclusion of an instruction must “state distinctly the matter to which counsel objects and the grounds of counsel’s objection.” Millies v. LandAmerica Transnation, 185 Wn.2d 302, 310 , 372 10 No. 39475-1-III State v. Goff P.3d 111 (2016) (quoting CR 51(f)). “[T]he purpose of the rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to know and clearly understand the nat

2023This is so “the trial court an opportunity to correct any error, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and retrials.” Id. (citing Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26, 37 , 666 P.2d 351 (1983)).

2021“These rules are intended ‘to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and retrials.’ ” Avendano- Lopez, 79 Wn.

2021Wilcox v. Basehore, 187 Wn.2d 772, 788 , 389 P.3d 531 (2017).

2021Wilcox v. Basehore, 187 Wn.2d 772, 788 , 389 P.3d 531 (2017).

2020The “‘law of the case’ doctrine” provides that “‘before error can be claimed on the basis of a jury instruction given by the trial court, an appellant must first show that an exception was taken to that instruction.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 761, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salas, 127 Wn.2d 173, 181 , 897 P.2d 1246 (1995)).

2020The “‘law of the case’ doctrine” provides that “‘before error can be claimed on the basis of a jury instruction given by the trial court, an appellant must first show that an exception was taken to that instruction.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 761, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Salas, 127 Wn.2d 173, 181 , 897 P.2d 1246 (1995)).

2020App. 718, 723 , 308 P.3d 686 (2013). 4 Panorama Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc., 102 Wn.

2020Under RAP 2.5(a), appellate courts generally decline to review issues raised for the first time on appeal. 8 “The reason for this rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and retrials.” 9 To preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate 3 Nelson v. Washington State Dep’t. of Labor and Indus., 175 Wn.

2020App. 718, 723 , 308 P.3d 686 (2013). 4 Panorama Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc., 102 Wn.

2017The defense made no objection to these instructions at the instruction conference. 10 No. 34006-6-111 State v. Powers As pointed out in Scott, the general rule that we do not entertain issues not raised in the trial court has specific applicability with respect to claimed errors in jury instructions in criminal cases through CrR 6.15( c), requiring that timely and well stated objections be made to instructions given or refused "' in order that the trial court may have the opportunity to correct any error."' 110 Wn.2d at 686 (quoting City of Seattle v. Rainwater, 86 Wn.2d 567, 571 , 546 P.2d 45

2017The defense made no objection to these instructions at the instruction conference. 10 No. 34006-6-111 State v. Powers As pointed out in Scott, the general rule that we do not entertain issues not raised in the trial court has specific applicability with respect to claimed errors in jury instructions in criminal cases through CrR 6.15( c), requiring that timely and well stated objections be made to instructions given or refused "' in order that the trial court may have the opportunity to correct any error."' 110 Wn.2d at 686 (quoting City of Seattle v. Rainwater, 86 Wn.2d 567, 571 , 546 P.2d 45

1995State v. Peterson, [ 73 Wn.2d 303 , 306 n.5, 438 P.2d 183 (1968)].

1995State v. Peterson, [ 73 Wn.2d 303 , 306 n.5, 438 P.2d 183 (1968)].

1988CrR 6.15(c) requires that timely and well stated objections *686 be made to instructions given or refused "in order that the trial court may have the opportunity to correct any error." Seattle v. Rainwater, 86 Wn.2d 567, 571 , 546 P.2d 450 (1976); cf. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203 , 97 S.Ct. 1730 (1977) (describing analogous federal rule).

1988CrR 6.15(c) requires that timely and well stated objections *686 be made to instructions given or refused "in order that the trial court may have the opportunity to correct any error." Seattle v. Rainwater, 86 Wn.2d 567, 571 , 546 P.2d 450 (1976); cf. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203 , 97 S.Ct. 1730 (1977) (describing analogous federal rule).

1976State v. Louie, 68 Wn.2d 304, 311-12 , 413 P.2d 7 (1966); Dravo Corp. v. L.W.

1976State v. Louie, 68 Wn.2d 304, 311-12 , 413 P.2d 7 (1966); Dravo Corp. v. L.W.