Opinion ID: 2630876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Has Levy established a manifest constitutional error?

Text: ¶ 13 Levy did not assert that the error was a manifest constitutional error in his petition for review. However, in his brief on the merits, he argued that this court has historically accepted review of challenges to instructions on the grounds that they are judicial comments. The State argues that because Levy did not object to the instruction at trial, in order to establish that the error is manifest he must show that the error affected his rights and an error that is purely abstract and theoretical cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Br. of Resp't at 10. The State further argues that errors in jury instructions are only of constitutional magnitude if they are misleading or fail to inform the jury of the applicable law. ¶ 14 We have long held that even if the defendant fails to object at trial, error may be raised on appeal if it invades a fundamental right of the accused. State v. Becker, 132 Wash.2d 54, 64, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) (a reviewing court will consider a claimed error in an instruction if giving such instruction invades a fundamental right of the accused.); State v. Lampshire, 74 Wash.2d 888, 893, 447 P.2d 727 (1968) (because a comment on the evidence invades a constitutional provision, failure to object does not foreclose raising the issue on appeal); State v. Bogner, 62 Wash.2d 247, 252, 382 P.2d 254 (1963) (even if the evidence is undisputed or overwhelming, comment by the judge violates a constitutional injunction). ¶ 15 The claimed error in the jury instructions here alleges judicial comment on the evidence, not the omission of elements. Because judicial comments on the evidence are explicitly prohibited by the Washington Constitution we conclude that Levy raises an issue involving a manifest constitutional error, and his claim may be heard on appeal even though he did not object to the instructions at trial.