Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP   PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court

State v. O'Hara

O'Hara was convicted of Second Degree Assault after beaning a guy a few times with a mag light. He claimed self defense and the court issued a proper instruction. The self-defense instruction contains the following language:

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when used by a person who reasonably believes that he is about to be injured and/or in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person or a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in that person's possession, and when the force is not more than is necessary.

The trial court then gave a partial definition of malice, but did not include the language from Title 9A that "[m]alice may be inferred from an act done in wilful disregard of the rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse, or an act or omission of duty betraying a wilful disregard of social duty."

As you might expect, O'Hara didn't object. The court of appeals reversed anyhow, finding a manifest constitutional error which could be raised without preservation. Unfortunately, the failure to define individual terms is usually not manifest error, and the supplemental tidbit on malice didn't really change the definition of self defense (which would be manifest error). Anyhow, to make a long story short, not manifest constitutional error, and the verdict stands.

I did have a good joke here but failed to find what I needed to pull it off. I'd rather provide no humor than bad humor. I wish Dane Cook felt the same way.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.