# State v. Hoffman

> Washington Supreme Court · January 10, 1991 · 116 Wash. 2d 51

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9595786

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Patrick Gene Hoffman, Et Al, Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 10, 1991
- **Citations:** 116 Wash. 2d 51; 804 P.2d 577; 1991 Wash. LEXIS 133
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Utter
- **Judges:** Andersen, Dore, Utter
- **Cited by:** 436 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/9595786

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- affirming defendants’ first degree murder convictions even though *487 instructions allowed the jury to convict if they found either defendant had premeditated the shooting; the jury did not have to unanimously agree which defendant was the accomplice or principal

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9595786. Public record. Not legal advice.