Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,721 charsno abuse of discretion regarding instruction no. 9. 14 SPD also argues that the trial court unduly emphasized Sgt. Hockett’s theory of the case by reading the instruction to the jury multiple times during the trial. SPD relies on Cornejo v. State, 57 Wn. App. 314, 319-21, 788 P.2d 554 (1990), which held that a trial court erred in reading a contributory negligence instruction multiple times during the trial because its repetition “unfairly turned the jury’s attention away from the clear evidence of the State’s negligence, toward the question of Mrs. Cornejo’s contributory negligence.” Cornejo is distinguishable because the instruction in that case stated a single legal principle that was favorable to the party that prevailed at trial. That did not occur here. 32 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I VI SPD argues the trial court erred in granting Sgt. Hockett’s motion in limine to exclude portions of an L&I report stating that SPD did not violate occupational CO exposure standards at the West Garage in August 2017 and declining to issue a citation. We disagree. “Out-of-court statements offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay, which is generally not admissible.” Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs., Inc., 164 Wn.2d 432, 450, 191 P.3d 879 (2008) (citing ER 801, 802). Hearsay can still be admissible under the public records exception codified in RCW 5.44.040, which provides, “Copies of all records and documents on record or on file in the offices of the various departments . . . of this state . . . when duly certified . . . must be admitted in evidence in the courts of this state.” However, “not every