State v. Grogan, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010). · Go Syfert
State v. Grogan, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
76 citation events (76 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Martinez (wash, 2024-01-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Martinez
Wash. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an error in a trial is not grounds for reversal unless the error was prejudicial to the defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Martinez
Wash. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an error in a trial is not grounds for reversal unless the error was prejudicial to the defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) City of Seattle v. Erickson
Wash. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
utside of reversal for insufficiency of the evidence ... , outright dismissal is rarely granted.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) City of Seattle v. Erickson
Wash. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
utside of reversal for insufficiency of the evidence ... , outright dismissal is rarely granted.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Applegate
Wash. Ct. App. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
structural errors include things like relieving the state of its burden of proof, denying a public trial, and denying counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Applegate
Wash. Ct. App. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
structural errors include things like relieving the state of its burden of proof, denying a public trial, and denying counsel.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lui
Wash. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47, 59-60 , 234 P.3d 169 (2010); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 928-30 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996); State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 242-43 , 922 P.2d 1285 (1996); State v. St.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lui
Wash. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47, 59-60 , 234 P.3d 169 (2010); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 928-30 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996); State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 242-43 , 922 P.2d 1285 (1996); State v. St.
cited Cited "see" State v. Norris
Wash. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grenning, 169 Wash.2d at 56 , 234 P.3d 169 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State Of Washington, V. Mehmet Bilgi
Wash. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
In Boyd, our supreme court held that where a defendant is charged with offenses involving child pornography based on images on his computer, “adequate representation requires providing a ‘mirror image’ of that hard drive; enabling the defense attorney to consult with computer experts who can tell how the evidence made its way onto the computer.” 160 Wn.2d at 436 ; see also State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47, 56 , 234 P.3d 169 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Personal Restraint Petition of Casey Dullea Peppin
Wash. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court also noted, “[w]here the nature of the case is such that copies are necessary in order that defense counsel can fulfill this critical role, CrR 4.7(a) obliges the prosecutor to provide copies of the evidence as a necessary consequence of the right to effective representation and a fair trial.” Id. at 435; see also State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47 , 234 P.3d 169 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Clifford James GROGAN, Petitioner.
82609-9.
Washington Supreme Court.
Jun 2, 2010.
234 P.3d 169

ORDER

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Alexander, Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens, considered at its June 1, 2010, Motion Calendar, whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b), and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the Petition for Review is granted and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals Division Three for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court No. 81243-8 — State of Washington v. Keith Ian Dow, 168 Wash.2d 243, 227 P.3d 1278 (2010).

For the Court

/s/ Madsen, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE