Legal Opinion

State v. O'Hara

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 2009No. 81062-1PublishedCited by 327 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.

¶1 Under RAP 2.5(a), appellate courts may refuse to hear any claim of error not raised at trial. Even if claims are not raised at the trial court, a party on appeal may raise claims of “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” RAP 2.5(a). Ryan J. O’Hara did not object to the self-defense jury instruction provided at his trial on a *95charge of second degree assault. The Court of Appeals held the trial court’s failure to provide a complete jury instruction on the definition of “malice” constituted a manifest error affecting a constitutional right and reversed O’Hara’s conviction. Because…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. State v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. ScottWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State v. KirkmanWashington Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by327 opinions

  1. State v. SublettWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State v. KalebaughWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. PaumierWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  4. State v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State v. GordonWashington Supreme Court · 2011

322 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