Facts: Respondent Ryan O’Hara was charged with second degree assault in the Superior Court for Spokane County where he argued his actions were in self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury on the law of self-defense per O’Hara’s request, but also instructed the jury as to the meaning of “malice” used in the self-defense instruction without O’Hara’s request or objection. O’Hara was convicted of the charge, and subsequently appealed challenging his conviction on the ground that the trial court’s instruction provided an incomplete definition of “malice,” which failed to include a major part of the definition according to RCW §9A.04.110(12). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that it did fail to provide the jury with an adequate definition of “malice” relating to O’Hara’s self-defense claim. The Supreme Court of Washington granted the State’s petition for review.

Question(s): Are allegedly erroneous self-defense jury instructions automatically constitutional in nature and presumed prejudicial?

Does the trial court’s failure to include the entire statutory definition of “malice” in its jury instruction qualify under the manifest constitutional error exception to the requirement that a party preserve its claim at trial?

Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court’s failure to provide the full statutory definition did not constitute manifest constitutional error because the omission did not create practical and identifiable consequences during the trial that should have been obvious to the trial court. It was not necessary for the Court of Appeals to review O’Hara’s claim since no objections were raised during trial, in addition to the fact that the instruction did not relieve the State of its obligation to prove the elements of the crime and disprove O’Hara acted in self-defense. O’Hara’s conviction was therefore upheld.

Docket No. 81062-1 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 25597-2)

Petitioner: State of Washington

(Counsel: Steven J. Tucker and Andrew J. Metts III)

Respondent: Ryan O'Hara

(Counsel: Jordan B. McCabe)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Vote: 8-1

Opinion: 167 Wn.2d 91 (2009)

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders
(Dissent)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst
(Majority)

Johnson

Seinfeld
(Pro Tem)