at 594-95 (reasoning jury may have followed erroneous instruction). We must now determine whether the trial court’s failure to read the instruction was a manifest error affecting a constitutional right. RAP 2.5(a)(3); see McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 333. Here, the concerned instruction defined assault and contained the essential element of specific intent. State v. Eastmond, 129 Wn.2d 497, 502, 919 P.2d 577 (1996); State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d 707, 713-14, 887 P.2d 396 (1995). Omitting the instruction orally was an error of constitutional magnitude because it relieved the State of its burden of proving every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Eastmond, 129 Wn.2d at 502; Byrd, 125 Wn.2d at 713-14; see also State v. Iosefa, 77 Haw. 177, 880 P.2d 1224, 1230 (Ct. App. 1994) (<HOLDING>). To determine whether the constitutional error
holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial holding trial courts failure to recite a presumption of innocence instruction seriously jeopardized the defendants federal constitutional right to due process and a fair trial recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims