mitigation instruction in Washington

2005App. 606 , 15 P.3d 210 (2001), to support her proposition that only a medical doctor’s testimony may support a mitigation instruction.

2005Fox cites to Colwell v. Holy Family Hosp., 104 Wash.App. 606 , 15 P.3d 210 (2001) to support her proposition that only a medical doctor's testimony *271 may support a mitigation instruction.

2005App. 239 , 935 P.2d 1377 (1997) to argue that the trial court erred in giving the mitigation instruction.

2005McCormick Handbook on the Law of Damages § 35, at 133 (1935)). ¶ 14 Fox relies primarily on this court's decision in Cox v. The Keg Restaurants U.S., Inc., 86 Wash.App. 239 , 935 P.2d 1377 (1997) to argue that the trial court erred in giving the mitigation instruction.

2023In Fox we explained, “To support a mitigation instruction, expert testimony must establish that the alternative treatment would more likely than not improve or cure the plaintiff’s condition.” Id.

2023Hawkins, 92 Wn.

2005Fox cites to Colwell v. Holy Family Hosp., 104 Wash.App. 606 , 15 P.3d 210 (2001) to support her proposition that only a medical doctor's testimony *271 may support a mitigation instruction.

1995State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 889 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 , 121 L.Ed.2d 112 , 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992), clarified in In re Lord, 123 Wn.2d 737 , 870 P.2d 964 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 , 115 S.Ct. 146 (1994). [149] We repeatedly have followed or acknowledged the holdings of Bartholomew II.

1995State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 889 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 , 121 L.Ed.2d 112 , 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992), clarified in In re Lord, 123 Wn.2d 737 , 870 P.2d 964 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 , 115 S.Ct. 146 (1994). [149] We repeatedly have followed or acknowledged the holdings of Bartholomew II.

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff’d, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant’s request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986).

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff’d, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant’s request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986).

1995State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 889 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 , 121 L.Ed.2d 112 , 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992), clarified in In re Lord, 123 Wn.2d 737 , 870 P.2d 964 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 , 115 S.Ct. 146 (1994). [149] We repeatedly have followed or acknowledged the holdings of Bartholomew II.

1995State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 889 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 , 121 L.Ed.2d 112 , 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992), clarified in In re Lord, 123 Wn.2d 737 , 870 P.2d 964 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 , 115 S.Ct. 146 (1994). [149] We repeatedly have followed or acknowledged the holdings of Bartholomew II.

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff’d, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant’s request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986).

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829, 889 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 856 , 121 L.Ed.2d 112 , 113 S.Ct. 164 (1992), clarified in In re Lord, 123 Wn.2d 737 , 870 P.2d 964 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 , 115 S.Ct. 146 (1994). [149] We repeatedly have followed or acknowledged the holdings of Bartholomew II.

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1995Wash. 1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1363 (1993); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 422 , 717 P.2d 722 (not error for trial court to accede to defendant's request not to include any of the statutory factors in the mitigation instruction), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986). [136] WPIC 31.07 cmt., at 358. [137] See Mak, 105 Wn.2d at 758 ; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [138] Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 , 125 L.Ed.2d 290, 306-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993). [139] Penalty phase instruction 5, Clerk's Papers, at 2614; WPIC 31.07, at 357. [140] See, e.g., In re Rupe, 115 Wn.2

1984Worswick, A.C.J., and Petrie, J., concur. 1 The exclusion of February 17 to March 7 was not appealed and is not at issue here. 2 RCW 41.64.130(1)(a) provides: “Within thirty days after the recording of the order and the mailing thereof, the employee may appeal the decision and order of the board on appeals made pursuant to RCW 41.06.170(2), as now or hereafter amended, to the superior court of Thurston county on one or more of the grounds that the order was: " (a) Founded on or contained an error of law, which shall specifically include error in construction or application of any pertinent rul

1984App. 701 , 615 P.2d 1305 (1980); D.

1982Sosnick & Son, 102 Cal. App. 3d 627, 637 , 162 Cal. Rptr. 87 (1980), has stated without citation of authority that "a broad mitigation rule finds no support in appellate antitrust decisions.” Nevertheless, that court held that the plaintiff must show that there was no alternative comparable substitute for the products formerly obtained from the defendant, and thus the court gave effect to the "avoidable consequences" doctrine.

1982Sosnick & Son, 102 Cal. App. 3d 627, 637 , 162 Cal. Rptr. 87 (1980), has stated without citation of authority that "a broad mitigation rule finds no support in appellate antitrust decisions.” Nevertheless, that court held that the plaintiff must show that there was no alternative comparable substitute for the products formerly obtained from the defendant, and thus the court gave effect to the "avoidable consequences" doctrine.

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 574 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974); Gardner v. McCarthy, 503 F.2d 733 (9th Cir.1974).

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 574 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974); Gardner v. McCarthy, 503 F.2d 733 (9th Cir.1974).

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 574 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974); Gardner v. McCarthy, 503 F.2d 733 (9th Cir.1974).

1980As noted by the federal court in Heinz v. McNutt, supra at page 1194, "[p]arole revocation considerations may differ from those involved in the sentencing for a criminal conviction." The hearing required by Akridge satisfies the parolee's liberty and society's rehabilitative interests by insuring that the decision to revoke is made on an adequate factual basis.

1980As noted by the federal court in Heinz v. McNutt, supra at page 1194, "[p]arole revocation considerations may differ from those involved in the sentencing for a criminal conviction." The hearing required by Akridge satisfies the parolee's liberty and society's rehabilitative interests by insuring that the decision to revoke is made on an adequate factual basis.