misconduct at trial constitutes waiver in Washington

2024“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2023“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2024“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2023“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2024“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2023“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2019But opinion testimony about a criminal defendant's guilt violates the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.23 A prosecutor commits misconduct when her questioning of a witness asks a witness to provide inadmissible testimony.24 "A prosecutor has no right to call to 21 State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 22 Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). 23 State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014). 24 State v. Jerrels, 83 Wn.

2009Gregory, 158 Wn.2d at 841 (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). ¶36 In the context of closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney has “wide latitude in making arguments to the jury and prosecutors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id. at 860 (citing State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 641 , 888 P.2d 1105 (1995)).

2019But opinion testimony about a criminal defendant's guilt violates the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.23 A prosecutor commits misconduct when her questioning of a witness asks a witness to provide inadmissible testimony.24 "A prosecutor has no right to call to 21 State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 22 Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). 23 State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014). 24 State v. Jerrels, 83 Wn.

2009Gregory, 158 Wn.2d at 841 (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). ¶36 In the context of closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney has “wide latitude in making arguments to the jury and prosecutors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id. at 860 (citing State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 641 , 888 P.2d 1105 (1995)).

2024“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2024“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)).

2009Gregory, 158 Wn.2d at 841 (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). ¶36 In the context of closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney has “wide latitude in making arguments to the jury and prosecutors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id. at 860 (citing State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 641 , 888 P.2d 1105 (1995)).

2009Gregory, 158 Wn.2d at 841 (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). ¶36 In the context of closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney has “wide latitude in making arguments to the jury and prosecutors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id. at 860 (citing State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 641 , 888 P.2d 1105 (1995)).

2019But opinion testimony about a criminal defendant's guilt violates the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.23 A prosecutor commits misconduct when her questioning of a witness asks a witness to provide inadmissible testimony.24 "A prosecutor has no right to call to 21 State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 22 Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). 23 State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014). 24 State v. Jerrels, 83 Wn.

2019But opinion testimony about a criminal defendant's guilt violates the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.23 A prosecutor commits misconduct when her questioning of a witness asks a witness to provide inadmissible testimony.24 "A prosecutor has no right to call to 21 State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 22 Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). 23 State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014). 24 State v. Jerrels, 83 Wn.

2019But opinion testimony about a criminal defendant's guilt violates the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.23 A prosecutor commits misconduct when her questioning of a witness asks a witness to provide inadmissible testimony.24 "A prosecutor has no right to call to 21 State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 22 Fisher, 165 Wn.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). 23 State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 199 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014). 24 State v. Jerrels, 83 Wn.

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2018“Defense counsel’s failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is ‘so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice’ incurable by a jury instruction.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 841 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). “[T]he absence of an objection by defense counsel ‘strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the tri

2017State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 774 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007). ¶60 Failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is so flagrant and ill intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice and this prejudice cannot be cured by a jury instruction.

2017State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 774 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007). ¶60 Failure to object to the misconduct at trial constitutes waiver on appeal unless the misconduct is so flagrant and ill intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting prejudice and this prejudice cannot be cured by a jury instruction.