# State v. Olson

> Washington Supreme Court · April 27, 1995 · 126 Wash. 2d 315

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9617452

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Bryan P. Olson, Petitioner
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 27, 1995
- **Citations:** 126 Wash. 2d 315; 893 P.2d 629; 1995 Wash. LEXIS 153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Talmadge
- **Judges:** Utter, Talmadge
- **Cited by:** 252 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/9617452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the appellate court may review unassigned errors if the issues are reasonably clear from the arguments in the brief, the opposing party has not been prejudiced, and the court has not been overly inconvenienced
- noting the discretion provided to an appellate court in RAP 1.2(a) "should normally be exercised unless there are compelling reasons not to do so"

## Opinion text

Talmadge, J.
)(concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion. The failure to assign error, as required by RAP 10.3(a) and RAP 10.3(g), should not result in the waiver of the error on appeal where the issue associated with the error is plainly articulated and argued. An issue is waived, however, if counsel do not plainly articulate and argue it in the appellate pleadings.
I write separately only to emphasize that proper assignments of error are indeed mandatory in briefs. RAP 10.3(a)(3), RAP 10.3(b), RAP 10.3(g), RAP 10.3(h). Assignments of error assist counsel and the appellate courts to focus the issues for decision. Even though the failure to assign error may not result in the waiver of the issue associated with the alleged error, sanctions under RAP 10.7 may well be appropriate for counsel who neglect to meet the requirements of RAP 10.3. See, e.g., Hurlbert v. Gordon, 64 Wn. App. 386 , 824 P.2d 1238 , review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1015 (1992).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9617452. Public record. Not legal advice.