State v. Weaver, 496 P.3d 1183

Early morning, Weaver entered a house he believed belonged to friends, plugged in his phone, and later was awakened by police; he was charged with residential burglary based on alleged theft of electricity.
Parties agreed to submit the lesser-included offense of first-degree criminal trespass to the jury (to-convict instruction required that defendant "knowingly entered or remained" and that he "knew that the entry or remaining was unlawful").
The court also gave a pattern "knowledge" instruction stating it is not necessary that a person know the fact is "defined by law as being unlawful."
Jury acquitted on burglary but convicted of first-degree criminal trespass; Weaver appealed, arguing the knowledge instruction conflicted with the trespass instruction and relieved the State of proving subjective knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court held the invited-error doctrine did not apply (State proposed the knowledge instruction) and, on the merits, found the instructions—read as a whole—clear and legally correct, affirming the conviction.
Justice Gordon McCloud dissented, arguing the instructions were contradictory, relieved the State of proving an essential element, and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Weaver)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the "knowledge" definitional instruction conflicted with the trespass to-convict instruction and relieved the State of proving subjective knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt	Instruction saying it is "not necessary" to know a fact is "defined by law as being unlawful" could be read to allow conviction without proof that Weaver knew his presence was unauthorized	The knowledge instruction simply states ignorance of the law is not a defense; read with the to-convict and unlawful-entry instructions, jurors must find Weaver knew he was not licensed, invited, or privileged to be there	Court rejected Weaver’s claim: instructions read as a whole required proof of awareness he lacked license/invitation and did not misstate law; conviction affirmed
Whether the invited-error doctrine bars review because the defense proposed the trespass instruction	Weaver argued the doctrine should not apply to the State-proposed knowledge instruction	State argued the defense proposed the lesser-included trespass instruction and cannot complain	Court held invited-error doctrine inapplicable because Weaver did not propose the challenged knowledge instruction; review allowed

State v. LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d 896 (Wash. 1996) (instructions must be "manifestly clear" to the average juror)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2009) (instructions read as a whole must correctly state the law and permit presentation of defendant's theory)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (Wash. 2012) (jurors are presumed to follow the court's instructions)
State v. Brown, 147 Wn.2d 330 (Wash. 2002) (harmless-error standard for constitutional error in jury instructions and element omission)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error framework when an element is omitted or misstated)
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (ambiguity in instructions may undermine assurance that jury followed constitutional interpretation)