In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Hoyt W. Crace

Summary

The court held that a personal restraint petitioner who establishes ineffective assistance of counsel under the applicable constitutional prejudice standard need not make an additional showing of actual and substantial prejudice. Nevertheless, Crace failed to establish prejudice because the evidence supported his conviction and the court presumed the jury would have followed the law and would not have changed its verdict merely because a lesser-included offense instruction was available. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals. Wiggins, J., concurring in the result only, would not have reached the double-prejudice issue, while Chambers, J., dissenting, would have granted a new trial because the omitted instruction could reasonably have led to a nonstrike verdict.