Legal Opinion

City of Seattle v. Patu

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 2002No. 71842-3PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChambers, J.

— We are asked to determine whether the invited error doctrine precludes consideration of the petitioner’s complaint that an essential element was omitted from the jury instructions at his trial. We conclude that it does.

*719In November 1994, Paul H. Patu and his friend, J.T. Loveless, joined a group of late night revelers in Othello Park. Shortly thereafter, Seattle police responding to a complaint of noise investigated Loveless for an alcohol violation. When the police attempted to arrest Loveless on outstanding warrants, he resisted. Concerned about possible use of excessive force as police…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. OlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. BoyerWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. State v. StuddWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. HendersonWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. SteinWashington Supreme Court · 2001

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State v. MomahWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. MomahWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. RecuencoWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. RecuencoWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. SchalerWashington Supreme Court · 2010

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API