State of Washington v. John Mark Hamilton, 34109-7

Defendant John Mark Hamilton entered a convenience store, argued with clerk K.K., and was seen on surveillance video holding a glass bottle; clerk (limited English) testified she feared for her safety, lay down behind the counter, and fled.
Neighbor corroborated clerk's panic and identified Hamilton returning to the store rummaging through items before leaving.
Hamilton claimed he went to reclaim a ring previously given to the clerk and that he angrily grabbed lottery tickets after she rejected his offer; a jail call undermined his credibility.
At a two-day bench trial the judge reviewed the video, found attempted first-degree robbery not proved (bottle not a deadly weapon), but found attempted second-degree robbery proved and convicted Hamilton.
Defense objected to detective testimony describing video observations and to the court’s references to the victim’s "fear;" the judge limited opinions about guilt and recessed to review the video before issuing findings.
Court sentenced at midpoint of standard range; defendant appealed, challenging the fear-standard and the admission of detective opinion testimony. Appeal affirmed; costs on appeal denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court applied a subjective standard in assessing victim's fear element for robbery	State: court applied correct reasonable-person standard and findings support conviction	Hamilton: court's repeated references to the victim being "afraid" show it used a subjective standard	Held: No misapplication; written findings and conclusion of law apply objective reasonable-person standard (Witherspoon)
Admissibility of detective opinion testimony about video and defendant's interview	State: detective's experience made his observations admissible and judge limited opinions on guilt	Hamilton: detective improperly opined defendant was lying or effectively guilty	Held: No reversible error—invited error for unobjected answer on cross; bench trial presumption that judge considered testimony for proper purposes and judge precluded guilt opinion

State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875 (establishes reasonable-person standard for fear element in robbery)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (standard for appellate review after bench trial and substantial-evidence definition)
State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (deference to factfinder on credibility and conflicting evidence)
State v. Kingman, 77 Wn.2d 551 (oral remarks can clarify findings but are not findings themselves)
Johnson v. Whitman, 1 Wn. App. 540 (inconsistent oral remarks cannot impeach written findings)
State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507 (invited error doctrine bars appealing errors a party invited)
State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533 (discussion of invited error and appellate review)
State v. Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d 808 (witness may not express opinion that another lied)
State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336 (witness should not opine on defendant's guilt)
State v. Adams, 91 Wn.2d 86 (presumption in bench trials that judge considered evidence properly)
State v. Miles, 77 Wn.2d 593 (bench-trial presumption that judge follows law)
State v. Bell, 59 Wn.2d 338 (same presumption in bench trials)