holding that prosecutor’s phrasing argument in terms of “I think” or “I think the evidence shows,” to which trial counsel did not object, is not prosecutorial misconduct if the arguments are based on evidence or reasonable inferences
How later courts described this case
- holding that prosecutor’s phrasing argument in terms of “I think” or “I think the evidence shows,” to which trial counsel did not object, is not prosecutorial misconduct if the arguments are based on evidence or reasonable inferences
- holding that Washington law does not require “that jurors be unanimous as to the manner of an accomplice’s and a principal’s participation as long as all agree that they did participate in the crime”
- stating, in dicta, that an officer is entitled to the protection of the laws against assault notwithstanding the officer's inadvertent infringement on a person's constitutional rights
- finding sufficient evidence of premeditation where, among other factors, the defendants brought multiple weapons to the scene of the shooting, hid from the victims, and fired multiple shots at the victims
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Allen, 182 Wash. 2d 364 (2015)
However, the Binkin court relied on State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 804 P.2d 577 (1991), which is distinguishable from the present case.
The opinion
Utter, J.
(dissenting)—I would remand for a new trial on the sentencing phase. The error in failing to submit the "law enforcement officer" issue to the jury cannot be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.