Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,799 charsbecause the legal efficacy of the bank account applications was a question of law for the trial court. Therefore, Smith was not entitled to a jury instruction regarding that issue. 1. No Constitutional Requirement Under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury determination of every element of the charged offense. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476-77, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). As a result, the trial court must instruct the jury on all elements of the offense. State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 689, 757 P.2d 492 (1988). Smith argues that failing to give an instruction incorporating the legal efficacy requirement violates this constitutional requirement. However, legal efficacy is not an element of forgery. Ring, 191 Wn. App. at 793. The existence of a “written instrument” is the essential element. Id. Legal efficacy is merely a definition of that element. See id. at 793-94. The constitution does not require that the trial court further define an element of an offense. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 689; see also State v. O’Donnell, 142 Wn. App. 314, 325, 174 P.3d 1205 (2007). “[F]ailure to give a definitional instruction is not failure to instruct on an essential element.” State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 612, 940 P.2d 546 10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 51946-1-II (1997). Therefore, there is no constitutional requirement that the jury rather than the trial court decide the legal efficacy issue.2 But that conclusion does not resolve the issue here. If legal efficacy must be decided by the jury rather than the court, the trial court still may be required to instruct on legal efficacy under nonconstitutional principles.