State v. Laico
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
The definition of “great bodily harm” contained in RCW 9A.04.110(4)(c) is merely definitional and does not create alternative means of committing the crime of assault in the first degree. Therefore, jury unanimity with respect to the existence of great bodily harm does not require unanimity as to the type of great bodily harm. We reverse and remand for a new trial, however, because the court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the fourth degree when there was evidence supporting an inference that Laico committed only the lesser crime.
FACTS
Bahram Ahmadi was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. WorkmanWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. BerlinWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. JoyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- In Re the Personal Restraint of JeffriesWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. StrohmCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. LorenzWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. LorenzWashington Supreme Court · 2004
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.