v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995); State v. Lynn, 67 Wn. App. 339, 345, 835 P.2d 251 (1992). ¶15 In analyzing the asserted constitutional interest, we do not assume the alleged error is of constitutional magnitude. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 687. We look to the asserted claim and assess whether, if correct, it implicates a constitutional interest as compared to another form of trial error. See id. at 689-91. In instances where the allegation is that the defendant’s due process rights were violated because he or she was denied a fair trial, the court will look at the defendant’s allegation of a constitutional violation, and the facts alleged by the defendant, to determine whether, if true, the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial has been violated. See id. (<HOLDING>). ¶16 After determining the error is of
holding because nothing in the constitution requires the meaning of particular terms in a jury instruction to be specifically defined the defendants unpreserved claim regarding the jury instructions did not constitute constitutional error and thus was not properly preserved for appellate review holding that the plain error and harmless error standards of review merge in the ease of jury instructions because the duty to properly instruct the jury lies with the trial court holding that defendants issue regarding the constitutionality of two jury instructions was not preserved because defendant failed to object with specificity in the trial court below holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error