# State v. Coe

> Washington Supreme Court · January 28, 1988 · 109 Wash. 2d 832

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565040

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Frederick H. Kevin Coe, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 28, 1988
- **Citations:** 109 Wash. 2d 832; 750 P.2d 208; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 15
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Goodloe
- **Judges:** Dolliver, Goodloe, Dore, Andersen
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565040

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the legislature has taken no action to abrogate de facto parentage
- recognizing that threatened use is not included in the definition of first degree robbery

## Opinion text

Goodloe, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority opinion in all respects. I write separately only to address the dissent's concern that Coe's conviction on count 3 (Harmia) should be reversed due to cumulative taint from the admission of improper posthypnotic testimony on counts 5 and 6. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the admission of this improper testimony in any way prejudiced Coe's conviction on count 3. The jury was told to consider each count separately, and a jury is presumed to follow the court's instructions. State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 499 , 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211 (1983). The lack of prejudice in this case is demonstrated by the fact that the jury failed to convict Coe on one of the charged counts. This demonstrates that the jury was able to consider each count independently as it had been instructed. Absent a showing of prejudice, I see no reason to reverse Coe's conviction on count 3 for the rape of Julie Harmia.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565040. Public record. Not legal advice.