State v. O'Hara

¶27 (concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree the evidence sufficiently supports conviction. I disagree with Ryan O’Hara that the trial court erred in discretionarily shaping the malice definition to fit the case facts.

¶28 First, I do not believe Mr. O’Hara’s claimed instructional error can be considered for the first time on appeal, considering he failed to object below or offer an alternative definitional instruction. State v. Lyskoski, 47 Wn.2d 102, 111, 287 P.2d 114 (1955) (defendant may not object to the failure to give a definitional instruction if one not offered by defendant…