State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant V. Franklin Hutton, Appellant/cr-respondent
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. FRANKLIN LOUIS HUTTON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 67349-1-I DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: September 24, 2012 PER CURIAM. Franklin Hutton appeals his conviction for second degree assault, arguing that he was denied due process because the court s to-convict instruction omitted the element that the force used was unlawful. 1 Br. of Appellant at 1. But the State points out, and Hutton does not dispute, that his proposed toconvict instruction contained the same flaw. Any error was thus invited. City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wn.2d 717, 720, 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (invited error doctrine applies even to cases where the to-convict instruction allegedly omitted an essential element of the crime). And contrary to Hutton s assertions, his trial counsel did not raise this objection to the court s to-convict instruction below. Accordingly, review of the alleged error is waived. Affirmed. For the court: 1 We note that the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 109, 804 P.2d 577 (1991) (State s burden of proving absence of self defense need not be included in to convict instruction; preferred method is to give jury a separate self-defense instruction discussing the defense and the State s burden). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
