Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kronichgreen2 sentences2007"Jury instructions are sufficient if *1210 they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied." Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶ 14 Generally, a criminal defendant may not raise an objection to a jury instruction for the first time on appeal unless it relates to a "manifest error affecting a constitutional right." RAP 2.5(a)(3); see State v. Kronich, 160 Wash.2d 893, 899 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 2007“Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶14 Generally, a criminal defendant may not raise an objection to a jury instruction for the first time on appeal unless it relates to a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” RAP 2.5(a)(3); see State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 899 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kronichgreen2 sentences2007"Jury instructions are sufficient if *1210 they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied." Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶ 14 Generally, a criminal defendant may not raise an objection to a jury instruction for the first time on appeal unless it relates to a "manifest error affecting a constitutional right." RAP 2.5(a)(3); see State v. Kronich, 160 Wash.2d 893, 899 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 2007“Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶14 Generally, a criminal defendant may not raise an objection to a jury instruction for the first time on appeal unless it relates to a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” RAP 2.5(a)(3); see State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 899 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Beckergreen1 sentence2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jackmangreen1 sentence2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beckergreen1 sentence2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jackmangreen1 sentence2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2008“Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶13 In general, an objection to a jury instruction may not be raised by a criminal defendant for the first time on appeal, unless it involves a “ ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ ” State v. O’Donnell, 142 Wn. 2008“Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶13 In general, an objection to a jury instruction may not be raised by a criminal defendant for the first time on appeal, unless it involves a “ ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ ” State v. O’Donnell, 142 Wn. | 4 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Fowler
green
2 sentences2014State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 69 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990). 2014State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59, 69 , 785 P.2d 808 (1990). | 2 | 1994–2014 |
State v. O'DONNELL
green
2 sentences2008"Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied." Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶ 13 In general, an objection to a jury instruction may not be raised by a criminal defendant for the first time on appeal, unless it involves a "`manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'" State v. O'Donnell, 142 Wash.App. 314, 321-322 , 174 P.3d 1205 (2007) (quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)). 2008App. 314, 321-322 , 174 P.3d 1205 (2007) (quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. O'Donnell
green
2 sentences2008"Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied." Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶ 13 In general, an objection to a jury instruction may not be raised by a criminal defendant for the first time on appeal, unless it involves a "`manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'" State v. O'Donnell, 142 Wash.App. 314, 321-322 , 174 P.3d 1205 (2007) (quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)). 2008“Jury instructions are sufficient if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.” Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995). ¶13 In general, an objection to a jury instruction may not be raised by a criminal defendant for the first time on appeal, unless it involves a “ ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ ” State v. O’Donnell, 142 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2007When a constitutional error is asserted for the first time on appeal, the reviewing court must first determine whether the “error is truly of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988). 2007When a constitutional error is asserted for the first time on appeal, the reviewing court must first determine whether the “error is truly of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Dent
green
2 sentences2014"An objection to a jury instruction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal unless the instructional error is of constitutional magnitude." State v. Dent. 123 Wn.2d 467, 478 , 869 P.2d 392 (1994). 2014"An objection to a jury instruction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal unless the instructional error is of constitutional magnitude." State v. Dent. 123 Wn.2d 467, 478 , 869 P.2d 392 (1994). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Lampshire
green
2 sentences2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). 2014We may review Walker's challenge under RAP 2.5(a)(3).19 See State v. Becker. 132 Wn.2d 54, 64 , 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) ("'Since a comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.") (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lampshire. 74 Wn.2d 888, 893 , 447 P.2d 727 (1968)); see also State v. Jackman. 156 Wn.2d 736, 743 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006) (claim that a jury instruction contains a judicial comment may be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cunningham v. Town of Tieton
green
2 sentences1975Cunningham v. Tieton, 60 Wn.2d 434 , 374 P.2d 375 (1962). 1975Cunningham v. Tieton, 60 Wn.2d 434 , 374 P.2d 375 (1962). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.