Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts
Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts
C. The prosecutor committed misconduct and violated Mr. Hendrickson' due process rights to a fair trial by knowingly eliciting hearsay testimony .............................................................. .3 8 D. The prosecutor committed misconduct in bringing charges against Mr. Hendrickson which were not supported by the facts ............................. .40 VI. CONCLUSION.. ............................................................. .42
Table of Cases Washington Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITLES Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County, 1 1 0 Wn. App. 92, 38 P.3d 1040 (2002) ...................................................................... 32 Quality Rock Prod., Inc. v. 7hurstori County, 1 26 Wn. App. 250, 108 P.3d 805 (2005) ............................................................. .32 State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 175, 892 P.2d 29 (1995), cert. denied, 516U.S. 1121, 116 S.Ct. 931, 133 L.Ed.2d 858 (1996) .... 39 State v. Carter, 5 Wn.App. 802, 490 P.2d 1346 (1 97 l), review1 denied, 80 Wn.2d 1004 (1 972) .................................................. .23, 3 3 State v. Charlton, 90 Wn.2d 657, 585 P.2d 142 (1978) ................. 39 State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 73 1, 24 P.3d 1006, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1000, 122 S.Ct. 475, 151 L.Ed.2d 389 (2001) ....................... 29 State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 906 P.2d 925 (1995) ...................... 26 State v. Coles, 28 Wn.App. 563, 625 P.2d 71 3, review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1024 (1981) .................................................................. 38 State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 618 P.2d 99 (1980) ............. .23, 35 State v. Ermert, 94 Wn.2d 839, 621 P.2d 121 (1980) ................... .36 State v. Fiser, 99 Wn.App. 714, 995 P.2d 107, review denied, 14 1 Wn.2d 1023, 10 P.3d 1074 (2000). ........................................ .23 State v. Goble, 88 Wn.App. 503, 945 P.2d 263 (1997) ............... ..6 State v. Herzog, 73 Wn.App. 34, 867 P.2d 648, review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1022, 881 P.2d 255 (1994) .......................................... 25
- Page 1 and 2: Sheri L. Arnold Attorney for Appell
- Page 3: 8. Is it misconduct for a prosecuto
- Page 7 and 8: I. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR There was i
- Page 9 and 10: 4. Did the trial court abuse its di
- Page 11 and 12: trailer. RP 59, 87-88, 120-121. Leo
- Page 13 and 14: Mr. Joseph Rogers also testified at
- Page 15 and 16: possible for the jury to infer that
- Page 17 and 18: theft. RP 67. Mr. Rogers looked at
- Page 19 and 20: another individual named Lee Farrel
- Page 21 and 22: document and a Department of Licens
- Page 23 and 24: notebooks and a piece of paper with
- Page 25 and 26: in the glove box. RP 160. Mr. Phill
- Page 27 and 28: from inside the car. RP 3 1 1. Mr.
- Page 29 and 30: V. ARGUMENT A. The State presented
- Page 31 and 32: Probable cause for an arrest exists
- Page 33 and 34: to recover (1) property belonging t
- Page 35 and 36: inference that any evidence of stol
- Page 37 and 38: The facts set forth in the complain
- Page 39 and 40: jury could draw this inference. No
- Page 41 and 42: Specific criminal intent may be inf
- Page 43 and 44: of what Mr. Noe told him, despite M
- Page 45 and 46: 660, 663,440 P 2d 192 (1 968)). Pro
- Page 47 and 48: Wn.2d 346, 729 P.2d 48 (1986), citi
- Page 49 and 50: & && Sheri Arnold, WSBA No. 18760 A
Table of Cases<br />
<strong>Washington</strong> Cases<br />
TABLE OF AUTHORITLES<br />
Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County, 1 1 0 Wn. App. 92,<br />
38 P.3d 1040 (2002) ...................................................................... 32<br />
Quality Rock Prod., Inc. v. 7hurstori County, 1 26 Wn. App.<br />
250, 108 P.3d 805 (2005) ............................................................. .32<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 175, 892 P.2d 29 (1995), cert.<br />
denied, 516U.S. 1121, 116 S.Ct. 931, 133 L.Ed.2d 858 (1996) .... 39<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Carter, 5 Wn.App. 802, 490 P.2d 1346 (1 97 l), review1<br />
denied, 80 Wn.2d 1004 (1 972) .................................................. .23, 3 3<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Charlton, 90 Wn.2d 657, 585 P.2d 142 (1978) ................. 39<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 73 1, 24 P.3d 1006, cert. denied, 534<br />
U.S. 1000, 122 S.Ct. 475, 151 L.Ed.2d 389 (2001) ....................... 29<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 906 P.2d 925 (1995) ...................... 26<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Coles, 28 Wn.App. 563, 625 P.2d 71 3, review denied,<br />
95 Wn.2d 1024 (1981) .................................................................. 38<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 618 P.2d 99 (1980) ............. .23, 35<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Ermert, 94 Wn.2d 839, 621 P.2d 121 (1980) ................... .36<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Fiser, 99 Wn.App. 714, 995 P.2d 107, review denied,<br />
14 1 Wn.2d 1023, 10 P.3d 1074 (2000). ........................................ .23<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Goble, 88 Wn.App. 503, 945 P.2d 263 (1997) ............... ..6<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Herzog, 73 Wn.App. 34, 867 P.2d 648, review denied,<br />
124 Wn.2d 1022, 881 P.2d 255 (1994) .......................................... 25
Change language