aggressor instruction in Washington

2024In addition to the above, Riley held that where there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant provoked the need to act in self-defense, an aggressor instruction is appropriate. 137 Wn.2d at 909-10 .

2024“If there is credible evidence that the defendant made 20 No. 57320-2-II the first move by drawing a weapon, the evidence supports the giving of an aggressor instruction.” Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 910 .

2025An aggressor instruction impacts a defendant’s self- defense claim, so courts are urged to “use care in giving an aggressor instruction.” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 266 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020).

2025An aggressor instruction impacts a defendant’s self- defense claim, so courts are urged to “use care in giving an aggressor instruction.” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 266 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020).

2021An aggressor instruction may be given when it is “called for by the evidence.” State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904 , 910 n.2, 976 P.2d 624 (1999).

2020App. 577 . “[W]hen determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction.” While we have cautioned that “courts should use care in giving an aggressor instruction,” we have also recognized that “an aggressor instruction should be given where called for by the evidence.” Grott, 458 P.3d at 757 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Wingate, 155 Wn.2d 817 , 823 n.1, 122 P.3d 908 (2005), and State v Riley, 137

2019State v. Arthur, 42 Wn.

2018State v. Arthur, 42 Wn.

2024Id. 8 57530-2-II Where there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant provoked the need to act in self-defense, an aggressor instruction is appropriate.3 State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 191-92 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986).

2024Id. 8 57530-2-II Where there is credible evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine that the defendant provoked the need to act in self-defense, an aggressor instruction is appropriate.3 State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 191-92 , 721 P.2d 902 (1986).

2013In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was sufficient evidence to support an aggressor instruction in this case. 21 JdL 22 id 23 Id 24 ]d at 159. 25 ]d at 159-61 (citing State v. Thomas. 63 Wn.2d 59 , 385 P.2d 532 (1963)). 26 43 Wn.

1992App. 893, 901-02 , 721 P.2d 12 (1986) (finding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the defendant precipitated the incident against the victim). 8 Davis also contends that giving the aggressor instruction was an error of constitutional magnitude pursuant to RAP 2.5(a)(3).

2013A jury instruction is appropriate ifthere is sufficient evidence to support the theory on which the instruction is based.5 Generally, "the right ofself-defense cannot be successfully invoked by an aggressor or one who provokes an altercation."6 Although not favored, an aggressor instruction is proper if there is credible evidence, even if disputed, "from which a jury can reasonably determine that the 2 State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998). 3id at 772. 4 State v. Fernandez-Medina. 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). 5 State v. Davis. 119 Wn.2d 657, 665 , 835 P.2d

2005See also State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (when determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction).

2013A jury instruction is appropriate ifthere is sufficient evidence to support the theory on which the instruction is based.5 Generally, "the right ofself-defense cannot be successfully invoked by an aggressor or one who provokes an altercation."6 Although not favored, an aggressor instruction is proper if there is credible evidence, even if disputed, "from which a jury can reasonably determine that the 2 State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998). 3id at 772. 4 State v. Fernandez-Medina. 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). 5 State v. Davis. 119 Wn.2d 657, 665 , 835 P.2d

2005See also State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (when determining if the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction, the appellate court is to view the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the party that requested the instruction).

2010See State v. Smith, 131 Wn.2d 258, 265 , 930 P.2d 917 (1997) (“[W]e cannot assume that the jury attempted to compensate for the court’s [instructional] error .... [T]herefore, [we] cannot say that the error was harmless.”). ¶21 In sum, the trial court erred in granting the aggressor instruction.

2010See State v. Smith, 131 Wash.2d 258, 265 , 930 P.2d 917 (1997) ("we cannot assume that the jury attempted to compensate for the court's [instructional] error ... therefore, we cannot say that the error was harmless."). ¶ 21 In sum, the trial court erred in granting the aggressor instruction.

2010See State v. Smith, 131 Wn.2d 258, 265 , 930 P.2d 917 (1997) (“[W]e cannot assume that the jury attempted to compensate for the court’s [instructional] error .... [T]herefore, [we] cannot say that the error was harmless.”). ¶21 In sum, the trial court erred in granting the aggressor instruction.

2010See State v. Smith, 131 Wash.2d 258, 265 , 930 P.2d 917 (1997) ("we cannot assume that the jury attempted to compensate for the court's [instructional] error ... therefore, we cannot say that the error was harmless."). ¶ 21 In sum, the trial court erred in granting the aggressor instruction.

2019One of the ironies of this case is that the self-defense claim was exceedingly weak, a fact that the trial court repeatedly noted while debating whether or not to give the 3 A humorous example of error in giving an aggressor instruction, although the facts of the cases are tragic, is State v. Kidd, 57 Wn.

2013The aggressor instruction was warranted because 11 Response Brief at 13 (citing State v. Winqate. 155 Wn.2d 817, 822 , 122 P.3d 908 (2005)): see also Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 910 ("If there is credible evidence that the defendant made the first move by drawing a weapon, the evidence supports the giving of an aggressor instruction."). 12 Appellant's Opening Brief at 20. 13 Jd (citing Kidd, 57 Wn.

2024State v. Wasson, 54 Wn.

2019State v. Wasson, 54 Wn.

2019State v. Bea, 162 Wn.

2019App. 2d 423, 432-33, 415 P.3d 1208 (2018). 6 Bea, 162 Wn.

2013A jury instruction is appropriate ifthere is sufficient evidence to support the theory on which the instruction is based.5 Generally, "the right ofself-defense cannot be successfully invoked by an aggressor or one who provokes an altercation."6 Although not favored, an aggressor instruction is proper if there is credible evidence, even if disputed, "from which a jury can reasonably determine that the 2 State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998). 3id at 772. 4 State v. Fernandez-Medina. 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). 5 State v. Davis. 119 Wn.2d 657, 665 , 835 P.2d

2013A jury instruction is appropriate ifthere is sufficient evidence to support the theory on which the instruction is based.5 Generally, "the right ofself-defense cannot be successfully invoked by an aggressor or one who provokes an altercation."6 Although not favored, an aggressor instruction is proper if there is credible evidence, even if disputed, "from which a jury can reasonably determine that the 2 State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72 , 966 P.2d 883 (1998). 3id at 772. 4 State v. Fernandez-Medina. 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). 5 State v. Davis. 119 Wn.2d 657, 665 , 835 P.2d

2020To be “manifest” requires a showing of actual prejudice.25 “To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be ‘a plausible showing by the [appellant] that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.’”26 The Washington Supreme Court recently held in State v. Grott that not all erroneously given aggressor instructions are errors of constitutional magnitude.27 This is because although an aggressor instruction impacts a defendant’s claim of self-defense, it does not relieve the State of its burden of proof.28 Instead, an aggressor instruction is “used to e

2020To be “manifest” requires a showing of actual prejudice.25 “To demonstrate actual prejudice, there must be ‘a plausible showing by the [appellant] that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.’”26 The Washington Supreme Court recently held in State v. Grott that not all erroneously given aggressor instructions are errors of constitutional magnitude.27 This is because although an aggressor instruction impacts a defendant’s claim of self-defense, it does not relieve the State of its burden of proof.28 Instead, an aggressor instruction is “used to e