Legal Opinion

State v. Naillieux

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 18, 2010No. 28310-1-IIIPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

¶1 We will review manifest constitutional error even if the appellant did not object or except in the trial court. However, the appellant must show error that is manifest in the record and constitutional in magnitude. Here, the appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction and to the admission of opinions on whether a tank was approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT). We conclude that there was no manifest constitutional error; indeed, there was no error at all. We conclude that the State failed to properly allege the elements of eluding a…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. State v. KjorsvikWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. PetrichWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. KitchenWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. RoggenkampWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. RoggenkampWashington Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz RiveraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  2. State v. SwetzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  3. State v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  4. State v. SwetzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz RiveraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015

7 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