5 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Borsheim
neutral
2 sentences2017App. 357 , 165 P.3d 417 (2007). 8 No. 74358-9-1-9 counts.25 But here, we do not rely on a unanimity instruction to resolve a separate and distinct act requirement for identical counts, as was the case in Borsheim. 2017App. 357 , 165 P.3d 417 (2007). 8 No. 74815-7-1/9 where the jury was given one single to-convict instruction for four separate identical counts.32 Here, we do not rely on a unanimity instruction to resolve a separate and distinct act requirement for identical counts, as was rejected in Borsheim. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Land
green
2 sentences2017We review a double jeopardy claim de novo, and it may be raised for the first time on appea1.19 The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy protects a defendant against multiple punishments for the same offense.2° We "may consider insufficient instructions in light of the full record' to determine if the instructions 'actually effected a double jeopardy error."21 Where multiple counts charge the same crime against the same victim occurring during the same time period, juries should be instructed that each count requires proof of a separate and distinct act.22 But the absence of a sepa 2017App. 593, 598 , 295 P.3d 782 (2013). 20 id. (citing U.S. CONST. amend. | 2 | 2014–2017 |
State v. Mutch
green
1 sentence2021App. 2d 685 , 695, 407 P.3d 359 (2017). “‘[I]n reviewing allegations of double jeopardy, an appellate court may review the entire record to establish what was before the court.’” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 664 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848-49 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Noltie
green
2 sentences2021App. 2d 685 , 695, 407 P.3d 359 (2017). “‘[I]n reviewing allegations of double jeopardy, an appellate court may review the entire record to establish what was before the court.’” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 664 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848-49 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991)). 2021App. 2d 685 , 695, 407 P.3d 359 (2017). “‘[I]n reviewing allegations of double jeopardy, an appellate court may review the entire record to establish what was before the court.’” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 664 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848-49 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Mutch
green
1 sentence2021App. 2d 685 , 695, 407 P.3d 359 (2017). “‘[I]n reviewing allegations of double jeopardy, an appellate court may review the entire record to establish what was before the court.’” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 664 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848-49 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.