submission defense in Washington

2016The Felton court acknowledged its hesitance to second-guess trial counsel’s decisions with an evaluation in hindsight, but stated that “prejudice does exist if the facts presented at trial or in the postconviction hearing would justify the submission of a defense ... to the jury.” 329 N.W.2d at 171 . ¶28 Estes argues that his counsel’s performance, as in Felton , was deficient because he failed to familiarize himself with the relevant law and, thus, was ill-equipped to provide his client with a full defense.

2016The Felton court acknowledged its hesitance to second guess trial counsel’s decisions with an evaluation in hindsight, but stated that “prejudice does exist if the facts presented at trial or in the postconviction hearing would justify the submission of a defense . . . to the jury.” 329 N.W.2d at 171 .

1999Similarly, the jury instructions before the Hutchinson court did not include the term “great bodily harm” or the questions raised by the submission of instruction number 20 here. 3 Although Ms. Corn makes reference to deceptive statements made to her by the police, her argument on appeal is limited to those police tactics that denied her access to her attorney. 4 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 , 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986). 5 CrR 3.1(b)(1) reads: “The right to a lawyer shall accrue as soon as feasible after the defendant is taken into custody, appears before a committing magistrate,

1999Similarly, the jury instructions before the Hutchinson court did not include the term “great bodily harm” or the questions raised by the submission of instruction number 20 here. 3 Although Ms. Corn makes reference to deceptive statements made to her by the police, her argument on appeal is limited to those police tactics that denied her access to her attorney. 4 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 , 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986). 5 CrR 3.1(b)(1) reads: “The right to a lawyer shall accrue as soon as feasible after the defendant is taken into custody, appears before a committing magistrate,

1986App. 430, 434-35 , 613 P.2d 187 (1980)." 7 Petitioner alleges a number of guilt phase errors in his petition, including (1) the submission of an instruction on intent; (2) the exclusion of certain testimony regarding the motive of another person; (3) the admission of numerous gruesome photographs; (4) the admission of a prior conviction for impeachment; and (5) the withholding of information by the prosecution.

1971In support of this assigned error defendant relies upon the recent case of State v. Golladay, 78 Wn.2d 121, 138 , 470 P.2d 191 (1970), where the court stated: [T]he rule sustaining an information which charges a crime to have been committed in two or more ways, cannot be employed to sustain a conviction, when the evidence is totally insufficient to warrant an instruction on one of the methods charged.

1971In support of this assigned error defendant relies upon the recent case of State v. Golladay, 78 Wn.2d 121, 138 , 470 P.2d 191 (1970), where the court stated: [T]he rule sustaining an information which charges a crime to have been committed in two or more ways, cannot be employed to sustain a conviction, when the evidence is totally insufficient to warrant an instruction on one of the methods charged.

1971Ga. 1970). 3 E.g., see State v. McCarty, 179 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 1970). 4 ‘The trial court’s submission of instruction 9 to the jury is understandable in light of prior decisions of this court.

1921Appellant cites Fishburne v. Robinson, 49 Wash. 271 , 95 Pac. 80 , but in that case there was no testimony to justify the submission of the defense to the jury.

1921Appellant cites Fishburne v. Robinson, 49 Wash. 271 , 95 Pac. 80 , but in that case there was no testimony to justify the submission of the defense to the jury.

1920Upon the appeal of Harris therefrom to this court, the judgment of dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial as against Saunders, our decision being reported in 108 Wash. 195 , 182 Pac. 949 .

1920Upon the appeal of Harris therefrom to this court, the judgment of dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial as against Saunders, our decision being reported in 108 Wash. 195 , 182 Pac. 949 .

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.

1912See, also, Sylvester v. Olson, supra; Best v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 533 , 97 Pac. 772 ; Angus v. Wamba, 50 Wash. 353 , 97 Pac. 246 ; Faben v. Muir, 59 Wash. 250 , 109 Pac. 798 ; Welever v. Advance Shingle Co., 34 Wash. 331 , 75 Pac. 863 ; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110 , 66 Pac. 109 ; Thomas & Co. v. Hillis, 64 Wash. 288 , 116 Pac. 854 .” Appellant evidently desires this court to discuss the question whether the evidence required the submission of the defense of assumption of risk to the jury.