holding that erroneous accomplice liability instructions were not harmless for any charges against the defendants wherein the jury might have convicted on an improper understanding of the law
How later courts described this case
- holding that erroneous accomplice liability instructions were not harmless for any charges against the defendants wherein the jury might have convicted on an improper understanding of the law
- finding error where jury was presented with two competing interpretations of undisputed events and what those events meant about defendant's intent and the State repeatedly referenced the missing witnesses
- holding erroneous accomplice liability instruction subject to harmless error analysis because "not every omission or misstatement in a jury instruction relieves the State of its burden"
- misstating element of crime in jury instruction harmless only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chambers, J.
(concurring in result) — Because I feel constrained by this court’s disposition in State v. Borrero, 147 Wn.2d 353 , 58 P.3d 245 (2002), I concur in result. However, I continue to adhere to the views I expressed in my Borrero concurrence/dissent.