plain violation in Washington

2020“In determining whether the facts support a finding of contempt, the court must strictly construe the order alleged to have been violated, and the facts must constitute a plain violation of the order.” In re Marriage of Humphreys, 79 Wn.

2018"In determining whether the facts support a finding of contempt, the court must strictly construe the order alleged to have been violated, and the facts must constitute a plain violation of the order." In re Marriage of Humphreys, 79 Wn.

2020We acknowledged that article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution gives a defendant “the right to appear and defend in person” and that this right includes “the use of not only his mental but his physical faculties unfettered, and unless some impelling necessity 9 State v. Jackson (John W., Sr.), No. 97681-3 demands the restraint of a prisoner to secure the safety of others and his own custody, the binding of the prisoner in irons is a plain violation of the constitutional guaranty.” Williams, 18 Wash. at 51 .

2019Washington courts have long held that the right to appear and defend in person extends to “the use of not only his mental but his physical faculties unfettered, and unless some impelling necessity demands the restraint of a prisoner, to secure the safety of others and his own custody, the binding of the prisoner in irons is a plain violation of the constitutional guaranty.” State v. Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 51 , 50 P. 580 (1897).

2005Plain error analysis considers the situation where a party raises an issue for the first time on appeal and requires that party to show “(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that *affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2005Plain error analysis considers the situation where a party raises an issue for the first time on appeal and requires that party to show “(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that *affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2018Where the trial court bases its contempt finding on a court order, the order "must be strictly construed in favor of the contemnor" and acts of the contemnor "must constitute a plain violation of the order." Dep't of Ecology v. Tiger Oil Corp., 166 Wn.

2016Where the superior court basis its contempt finding on a court order, the order "must be strictly construed in favor of the contemnor" and the facts found "must constitute a plain violation of the order." Dep't of Ecology v. Tiger Oil Corp.. 166 Wn.

2022Under the plain error rule, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights.” (Emphasis sic.) Perry at ¶ 14, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2022Under the plain error rule, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights.” (Emphasis sic.) Perry at ¶ 14, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2020In re Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 189 Wn.

2020When the trial court’s contempt finding is based on a court order, as here, “ ‘the order must be strictly construed in favor of the contemnor’ ” and “ ‘[t]he facts found must constitute a plain violation of the order.’ ” In re Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 189 Wn.

2019This includes the right “to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2018Our Supreme Court has “long recognized that a prisoner is entitled to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (citing Williams, 18 Wash. at 50 ), as modified, 33 P.3d 735 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State 4 No. 49709-3-II v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2019This includes the right “to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2018Our Supreme Court has “long recognized that a prisoner is entitled to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (citing Williams, 18 Wash. at 50 ), as modified, 33 P.3d 735 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State 4 No. 49709-3-II v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2019This includes the right “to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2018Our Supreme Court has “long recognized that a prisoner is entitled to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (citing Williams, 18 Wash. at 50 ), as modified, 33 P.3d 735 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State 4 No. 49709-3-II v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2005Plain error analysis considers the situation where a party raises an issue for the first time on appeal and requires that party to show “(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that *affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. 1544 , 137 L.

2005Thus, "[l]acking a formal verdict, the appellate court would be infringing the right to a jury trial by holding that no reasonable jury would have found otherwise." Id. (citing California v. Roy, 519 U.S. 2 , 117 S.Ct. 337, 339 , 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring)). [9] Plain error analysis considers the situation where a party raises an issue for the first time on appeal and requires that party to show "(1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights.'" Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 ,

1999Hartzog, 96 Wash.2d at 398 , 635 P.2d 694 (quoting Williams, 18 Wash. at 51 , 50 P. 580 ).

1999Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d at 398 (quoting Williams, 18 Wash, at 51).

1988State v. International Typographical Union, 57 Wn.2d 151, 158 , 356 P.2d 6 (1960); 17 C.J.S.

1988State v. International Typographical Union, 57 Wn.2d 151, 158 , 356 P.2d 6 (1960); 17 C.J.S.

2026CCOs may “search an individual based only on a ‘well-founded or reasonable suspicion’” of a violation, a plain exception to the rule for the general public that requires “a warrant supported by probable cause.” Id. at 302 (quoting State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 628 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009)).

2026CCOs may “search an individual based only on a ‘well-founded or reasonable suspicion’” of a violation, a plain exception to the rule for the general public that requires “a warrant supported by probable cause.” Id. at 302 (quoting State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 628 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009)).

2026CCOs may “search an individual based only on a ‘well-founded or reasonable suspicion’” of a violation, a plain exception to the rule for the general public that requires “a warrant supported by probable cause.” Id. at 302 (quoting State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 628 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009)).

2026Id.

2023App. 2d 388 , 393, 429 P.3d 1116 (2018) (quoting State v. Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 51 , 50 P. 580 (1897)).

2022Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Under the plain-error standard, “the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. West, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2022“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse affect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982).

2022“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse affect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982).

2022Under such circumstances, the reviewing court’s reversal is itself properly reversed.” Until and unless determined otherwise, we shall adhere to established Supreme Court case law in conducting our plain-error review. when no objection was raised at trial, expanding Crim.R. 52(B) “would skew the Rule’s careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.” (Internal quotations omitted.) State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 199 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), quoting Jo

2022Under such circumstances, the reviewing court’s reversal is itself properly reversed.” Until and unless determined otherwise, we shall adhere to established Supreme Court case law in conducting our plain-error review. when no objection was raised at trial, expanding Crim.R. 52(B) “would skew the Rule’s careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.” (Internal quotations omitted.) State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 199 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), quoting Jo

2022A. Plain-Error Standard Generally, “[i]f the defendant failed to raise an error affecting substantial rights at trial, an appellate court reviews the error under the plain error standard in Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 14 .

2022A. Plain-Error Standard Generally, “[i]f the defendant failed to raise an error affecting substantial rights at trial, an appellate court reviews the error under the plain error standard in Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 14 .

2022“An appellate court has discretion to notice plain error and therefore ‘is not required to correct it.’” Id., citing State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 23 .

2022“An appellate court has discretion to notice plain error and therefore ‘is not required to correct it.’” Id., citing State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 23 .

2022Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Under the plain-error standard, “the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. West, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2022Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Under the plain-error standard, “the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. West, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2020Ed. 2d 757 (2019) (“[The rule of lenity] is founded on ‘the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals’ to fair notice of the law ‘and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.’” (quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 , 5 L.

2020Ed. 2d 757 (2019) (“[The rule of lenity] is founded on ‘the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals’ to fair notice of the law ‘and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.’” (quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 , 5 L.

2018Our Supreme Court has “long recognized that a prisoner is entitled to be brought into the presence of the court free from restraints.” State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690 , 25 P.3d 418 (citing Williams, 18 Wash. at 50 ), as modified, 33 P.3d 735 (2001). “[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present, it is particularly within the province of the trial court to determine whether and in what manner shackles or other restraints should be used.” State 4 No. 49709-3-II v. Walker, 185 Wn.

2016For example, in State v. Tiscornia, 272 Or App 753, 755 , 358 P3d 326 (2015), the only evidence in the record related to the defendant’s ability to pay showed that the defendant had been “working on houses, cleaning them” for a specific person “a couple of years ago.” We concluded that the court committed plain error in imposing $980 in court-appointed attorney fees based on that record because it did not give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant “is or may be able” to pay court-appointed attorney fees.

2016For example, in State v. Tiscornia, 272 Or App 753, 755 , 358 P3d 326 (2015), the only evidence in the record related to the defendant’s ability to pay showed that the defendant had been “working on houses, cleaning them” for a specific person “a couple of years ago.” We concluded that the court committed plain error in imposing $980 in court-appointed attorney fees based on that record because it did not give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant “is or may be able” to pay court-appointed attorney fees.