588 (1985) (“oral instruction is vital to the fulfillment of the court’s duty to instruct the jury”); State v. Lindsey, 245 N.J. Super. 466, 586 A.2d 269, 274 (1991) (trial court must recite all instructions to the jury). “At the minimum the entire instructions should he read to the jury.” Lindsey, 586 A.2d at 274 (emphasis in original). The State notes correctly that this court generally presumes the jury follows its instructions. State v. Foster, 135 Wn.2d 441, 472, 957 P.2d 712 (1998). But that rule will not cure a trial court’s failure to support a written instruction with an oral recitation; a trial court’s failure to recite an instruction to the jury is analogous to giving an erroneous, ambiguous, or misleading instruction. See Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587, 593-94 (9th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Further, we will not presume the jury reads
holding that identical jury instructions regarding nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were not erroneous holding that written instructions did not cure erroneous oral instruction recognizing that a limiting instruction has the potential to cure any prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence holding that a district court can cure the effect of an improper prosecutorial comment with a jury instruction holding that the erroneous use of the term burglary in the beginning of the written jury instructions was not fundamental because any error was cured by the correct use of the term theft in the latter portion of the written instructions