State Of Washington v. Donna N. Jesmer, 49196-6

In 2008 Donna Jesmer moved into her mother Sandra Rodewald’s house; Rodewald later executed an unrecorded quitclaim deed in Jesmer’s name sometime before 2013.
Tension developed when Rodewald returned to the home in late 2013; on January 29, 2016 an altercation occurred in which Rodewald testified Jesmer assaulted her and stole personal property; Jesmer admitted assault (claiming self‑defense) and denied taking property that was not hers.
Prosecutor charged Jesmer with first‑degree robbery, second‑degree assault, and felony harassment (domestic‑violence special verdicts returned); acquitted of other counts.
At trial Jesmer requested a jury instruction explaining the legal effect of a quitclaim deed (text drawn from RCW 64.04.050) to support her theory that Rodewald had motive to fabricate and that Jesmer had a right to be in the house.
Trial court denied the quitclaim instruction but gave self‑defense and "stand your ground" instructions; also admonished jurors not to discuss the case during most recesses.
Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the deed instruction was irrelevant to robbery and unnecessary for the defense because Jesmer was able to present her theory; jury unanimity and admonishments were adequate.

Issue	Jesmer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing quitclaim‑deed instruction	Quitclaim instruction would show ownership/right to be in house and motive for Rodewald to lie, potentially negating robbery and supporting self‑defense	Instruction was irrelevant to robbery (deed affects real property, robbery requires taking personal property); instruction would confuse jury and was unnecessary because parties both testified deed existed and defense could argue motive	No error; court did not abuse discretion in refusing instruction
Whether failure to instruct jurors to deliberate only when all 12 present or to give WPIC admonishment before every recess denied unanimous jury	Absence of explicit duty‑to‑deliberate‑together instruction and full WPIC admonishment risked nonunanimous deliberations and constitutional error	Jury received standard unanimity/deliberation instruction and multiple admonishments not to discuss the case; no alternate deliberated; no authority showing additional instruction is required	No manifest constitutional error; unanimity and admonishments were adequate

Fergen v. Sestero, 182 Wn.2d 794 (2015) (standard of review for legal error in jury instructions)
State v. Jensen, 149 Wn. App. 393 (2009) (abuse of discretion review for instruction language decisions)
State v. Hamilton, 196 Wn. App. 461 (2016) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350 (2010) (instructions sufficient when they permit counsel to argue theory of the case)
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (2002) (same principle on jury instructions)
State v. Harvill, 169 Wn.2d 254 (2010) (entitlement to instruction when substantial evidence supports theory)
State v. Fernandez‑Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (2000) (view evidence favorably to party requesting instruction)
State v. Linehan, 147 Wn.2d 638 (2002) (instruction relevance requirement)
State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576 (2014) (failure to repeat unanimity instruction after replacing a juror during deliberations can violate unanimity)
DeHeer v. Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122 (1962) (court not required to find authorities when none cited)
State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d 541 (2013) (presumption jurors follow court instructions)