effective curative instruction (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

effective curative instruction in Washington

5 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Warren green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

2014“Had the trial [court] not intervened to give an appropriate and effective curative instruction, we would not hesitate to conclude that such a remarkable misstatement of the law by a prosecutor constitutes reversible error.” Warren, 165 Wn.2d at 28 . ¶71 Fourth, the State’s “should have known” argument was the focus of the entire case.

2014Had the trial [ court] not intervened to give an appropriate and effective curative instruction, we would not hesitate to conclude that such a remarkable misstatement of the law by a prosecutor constitutes reversible error." Warren, 165 Wn.2d at 28 .

52012–2015
State v. Warren green
wash · 2008
1 sentence

2012The court explained that "[h]ad the trial judge not intervened to give an appropriate and effective curative instruction, we *218 would not hesitate to conclude that such a remarkable misstatement of the law by a prosecutor constitutes reversible error." [13] Warren, 165 Wash.2d at 28 , 195 P.3d 940 .

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.110 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NJ 7 (2018–2025) WA 5 (2012–2015) OR 4 (2017–2025) MA 2 (2017–2024) CT 2 (2004–2004) TX 2 (2007–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check