State v. Bertrand

¶23 (concurring) — Although I agree with the result reached by my colleagues, I write separately to address the state of RAP 2.5(a)(3) analysis in Washington jurisprudence. Many conflicting recent opinions address what constitutes a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right” such that the error need not be preserved in the trial court but may be raised for the first time on appeal. In my opinion, these cases mistakenly seek to interpret a phrase that is clear on its face and should not be interpreted by the very courts whose jurisdiction the rule limits.

History of Reviewing Errors…