Washington v. Barry

Docket Number89976-2
Decision Date04 June 2015
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
107 cases
  • Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2022
    ...in whose favor the verdict was returned,’ " we presume prejudice unless the error affirmatively appears harmless. State v. Barry, 183 Wash.2d 297, 303, 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting State v. Wanrow, 88 Wash.2d 221, 237, 559 P.2d 548 (1977) ). " ‘A harmless error is an error which is trivial,......
  • State v. Ray
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2020
    ...whether the trial court's evidentiary error was harmless, applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard. State v. Barry , 183 Wash.2d 297, 317, 352 P.3d 161 (2015). Case must show a reasonable probability that, absent the error, the outcome of his trial would have been materially a......
  • State v. Loughbom
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 4, 2019
    ...Wn.2d at 774. When applying this standard, the court usually measures the strength of the State's evidence of guilt. State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 303, 352 P.3d 161 (2015). I will analyze the strength of the State's case against Gregg Loughbom later. On a side note, our Supreme Court, in i......
  • State v. Lee
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2017
    ...error review, reversal is not required when it is clear that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Barry, 183 Wash.2d 297, 302-03, 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967) ). This is a high standard on whi......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT