defendant raising claim in Washington

2021McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 334-35 .

2021McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 334-35 .

2017A defendant raising such a challenge "admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Id.

2017A defendant raising such a challenge "admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Id.

2022Not only must the defendant show improper conduct and prejudice, but they must also demonstrate that the prosecutor’s actions were “so 9 No. 38555-8-III State v. McKenzie flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice.” State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 760-61 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012).

2022Not only must the defendant show improper conduct and prejudice, but they must also demonstrate that the prosecutor’s actions were “so 9 No. 38555-8-III State v. McKenzie flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice.” State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 760-61 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012).

2021Under this exception, a defendant raising the error for the first time bears the burden of showing “(1) the error is manifest and (2) the error is truly of constitutional dimension.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).

2021Under this exception, a defendant raising the error for the first time bears the burden of showing “(1) the error is manifest and (2) the error is truly of constitutional dimension.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).

2019Davis, 152 Wn.2d at 673 . 7 No. 51871-6-II A defendant raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel faces a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was effective.

2019Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33 .

2017Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 .

2017We defer "to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence." State v. Cordero, 170 Wn.

1998This is an adequate and independent ground for rejecting his argument on this issue. [9] The court ruled that the defense could not present extrinsic evidence on that issue because it was collateral. [10] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [11] Since the defendant did not know Mr. Patrick was an informant, their conversations were not "interrogation" and no advisement of rights was required.

1998This is an adequate and independent ground for rejecting his argument on this issue. [9] The court ruled that the defense could not present extrinsic evidence on that issue because it was collateral. [10] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [11] Since the defendant did not know Mr. Patrick was an informant, their conversations were not "interrogation" and no advisement of rights was required.