# State v. Mitchell

> Washington Supreme Court · October 3, 1991 · 117 Wash. 2d 521

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560113

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Alvin Paul Mitchell, Et Al, Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 3, 1991
- **Citations:** 117 Wash. 2d 521; 817 P.2d 398; 1991 Wash. LEXIS 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Andersen
- **Judges:** Smith
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by State v. Dent, 123 Wash. 2d 467 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560113

## Opinion text

*540 Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority but, with respect to the claims of manifest instructional error affecting constitutional rights, would add as follows.
Such claims may be made for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3). All such claims relating to the instructions given in this case, however, are predicated on the factual proposition that both defendants were not directly and actively involved in the murder. The evidence is otherwise.
The evidence showed that the two defendants were together before, during and after the murder. Together, they watched the victim open his wallet with cash in it at the store and then together followed him approximately two blocks and attacked him. When the victim broke loose and ran, both of them ran after him. Then, while one defendant (Mitchell) stabbed the victim, the other (Hankerson) held and beat him while wearing brass knuckles. Afterward, both defendants went together to a residence where they washed the victim's blood off their shoes.
There is on that basis, therefore, no reversible constitutional instructional error. See, e.g., Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 95 L. Ed. 2d 127 , 107 S. Ct. 1676 (1987).
Brachtenbach, Durham, and Guy, JJ., concur with Andersen, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560113. Public record. Not legal advice.