right to present defense in Washington

188 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2026 63 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 (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Jonesgreen wash · 2010 · cited in 66 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2026 2 sentences 2026See Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 720 (holding that only relevant evidence is subject to constitutional protection for the right to present a defense). 2025Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 813-14 (quoting Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 721 ); see also Jennings, 199 Wn.2d at 66-67 (holding that under the Hudlow test defendant’s right to present was not violated because toxicology report was not of such high probative value that its exclusion would not outweigh the State’s interest in “avoiding 5 At times, Burgess appears to reference the right to confrontation in addition to the right to present a defense in his briefing.	6	66
State v. Tracygreen washctapp · 2005 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2017 2 sentences 2017State v. Tracy, 128 Wn. 2017State v. Tracy, 128 Wn.	2	4
United States v. Larieto Phillip Montoyagreen ca9 · 1984 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	2	2
State v. Ramosgreen wash · 2010 · cited in 43 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2026 2 sentences 2024Ed. 2d 297 (1973); State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010). 20 No. 58252-0-II Appellate courts review alleged violations of the right to present a defense using a two- step framework. 2012Harmless error analysis applied in context of (1) the right to remain silent: State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204, 222-23 , 181 P.3d 1 (2008); State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 242-43 , 922 P.2d 1285 (1996); State v. Sweet, 138 Wn.2d 466, 481 , 980 P.2d 1223 (1999); (2) the right to confront witnesses: State v. Koslowski, 166 Wn.2d 409, 431-32 , 209 P.3d 479 (2009); State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 927 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007); (3) the right to compel the attendance of witnesses: State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 928-30 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996); (4) the right to be present at all critical stages of the trial: S	1	43
State v. Arndtgreen wash · 2019 · cited in 18 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2025Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 813-14 (quoting Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 721 ); see also Jennings, 199 Wn.2d at 66-67 (holding that under the Hudlow test defendant’s right to present was not violated because toxicology report was not of such high probative value that its exclusion would not outweigh the State’s interest in “avoiding 5 At times, Burgess appears to reference the right to confrontation in addition to the right to present a defense in his briefing. 2021When determining whether the right to present a defense has been violated, “the State’s interest in excluding evidence must be balanced against the defendant’s need for the information sought to be admitted.” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 812 .	1	18
State v. Dardengreen wash · 2002 · cited in 13 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026 2 sentences 2026Id. at 620-21 . 2025State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 620 , 41 P.3d 1189 (2002); State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 347, 482 P.3d 913 (2021).	1	13
State v. Dardengreen wash · 2002 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 620 , 41 P.3d 1189 (2002); State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 347, 482 P.3d 913 (2021). 2021App. 2d 779, 788-89 , 474 P.3d 599 (2020) (citing Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 797-98 ; State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 621-22 , 41 P.3d 1189 (2002)).	1	7
State v. Aguirregreen wash · 2010 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2020The right to present a defense “does not extend to the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.” State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 363 , 229 P.3d 669 (2010) (citing State v. Otis, 151 Wn. 2017See State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 363 , 229 P.3d 669 (2010). 14 No. 49103-6-II We affirm.	1	4
State v. Aguirregreen wash · 2010 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2020The right to present a defense “does not extend to the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.” State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 363 , 229 P.3d 669 (2010) (citing State v. Otis, 151 Wn. 2017See State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 363 , 229 P.3d 669 (2010). 14 No. 49103-6-II We affirm.	1	4
State Of Washington v. Jorge Luis Lizarragagreen washctapp · 2015 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 2d at 371 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Lizarraga, 191 Wn. 2017A defendant’s right to present a defense, including the opportunity to offer testimony, “is basic in our system of jurisprudence.” Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 720 . “ ‘[I]n plain terms the right to present a defense[ is] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.’ ” Lizarraga, 191 Wn.	1	3
State v. Whelchelgreen wash · 1990 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025	1	1
United States v. Raul Lopez-Alvarezgreen ca9 · 1992 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023	1	1
State v. Finchgreen wash · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
State v. Finchgreen wash · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
Wynne v. Renicogreen ca6 · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
State v. Logangreen washctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (64)

Case	Cited	Years
Washington v. Texas green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	26	1994–2025
State v. Hudlow green wash · 1983 2 sentences 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	19	1996–2026
State v. Maupin green wash · 1996 2 sentences 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	15	2001–2025
State v. Maupin green wash · 1996 2 sentences 2025State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2024State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14 , 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918, 924 , 913 P.2d 808 (1996). “‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense.’” Maupin, 128 Wn.2d at 924 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	12	2001–2025
Chambers v. Mississippi green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2024App. 2d 618, 629- 31, 520 P.3d 1105 (2022), we traced the history of the right to present a defense back to the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. 2024App. 2d 618, 629- 31, 520 P.3d 1105 (2022), we traced the history of the right to present a defense back to the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L.	10	2017–2024
State v. Orn green wash · 2021 2 sentences 2025State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 352, 482 P.3d 913 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 326- 27, 126 S. Ct. 1727 , 164 L. 2023While the right to present a defense to a criminal charge is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not an absolute right to present all evidence the defendant would like. “[T]he Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive . . . only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.” State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 352, 482 P.3d 913 (2021) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 326- 27, 126 S. Ct. 1727 , 164 L.	7	2021–2025
State v. Wade green washctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2021State v. Wade, 186 Wn. 2021State v. Wade, 186 Wn.	6	2017–2021
State v. Thomas green washctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2009State v. Thomas, 123 Wash.App. 771, 778 , 98 P.3d 1258 (2004), review denied, 154 Wash.2d 1026 , 120 P.3d 73 (2005). 2009State v. Thomas, 123 Wn.	6	2005–2009
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2025State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 857 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004). 2013The right to compulsory process "is in plain terms the right to present a defense [and] a right to present the defendant's version of the facts." Id. at 19 ; State v. Tlzomas. 150 Wn.2d 821, 857 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004).	5	2013–2025
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2025State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 857 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004). 2013The right to compulsory process "is in plain terms the right to present a defense [and] a right to present the defendant's version of the facts." Id. at 19 ; State v. Tlzomas. 150 Wn.2d 821, 857 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004).	5	2013–2025
State v. Rehak green washctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2014A defendant does not have a right to introduce evidence that is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible.2 When a claim of self-defense is raised, the defendant may introduce two different kinds of evidence concerning the victim's character.3 First, the defendant may introduce evidence concerning the victim's reputation for violence.4 "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion."5 But "[e]vidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim 1 State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 23 2014Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d at 15 ; State v. Rehak, 67 Wn.	5	2004–2014
Holmes v. South Carolina green scotus · 2006 2 sentences 2023While the right to present a defense to a criminal charge is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not an absolute right to present all evidence the defendant would like. “[T]he Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive . . . only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.” State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 352, 482 P.3d 913 (2021) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 326- 27, 126 S. Ct. 1727 , 164 L. 2023While the right to present a defense to a criminal charge is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not an absolute right to present all evidence the defendant would like. “[T]he Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive . . . only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.” State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 , 352, 482 P.3d 913 (2021) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 326- 27, 126 S. Ct. 1727 , 164 L.	4	2014–2025
State v. Romero-Ochoa green wash · 2019 2 sentences 2025State v. Romero-Ochoa, 193 Wn.2d 341, 348 , 440 P.3d 994 (2019). 2025State v. Romero-Ochoa, 193 Wn.2d 341, 348 , 440 P.3d 994 (2019).	4	2020–2025
State v. Jennings green wash · 2022 2 sentences 2025State v. Jennings, 199 Wn.2d 53 , 63, 502 P.3d 1255 (2022); WASH. 2023To determine whether Nieuwenhuis was denied the right to present a defense, we apply the two-part test from State v. Jennings, 199 Wn.2d 53 , 502 P.3d 1255 (2022).	4	2023–2025
State v. Coristine green wash · 2013 2 sentences 2021State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370 , 380 n.1, 300 P.3d 400 (2013). 2021State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370 , 380 n.1, 300 P.3d 400 (2013).	4	2016–2021
State v. Iniguez green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2016State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 280-81 , 217 P.3d 768 (2009); State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010). 2015See e. g., Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 719 ; State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 280 , 217 P. 3d 768 ( 2009).	4	2013–2016
State v. Iniguez green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2016State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 280-81 , 217 P.3d 768 (2009); State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010). 2015See e. g., Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 719 ; State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 280 , 217 P. 3d 768 ( 2009).	4	2013–2016
Montana v. Egelhoff green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2015Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42 , 116 S. Ct. 2013 , 135 L. 2015Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42 , 116 S. Ct. 2013 , 135 L.	4	2011–2015
State Of Washington v. Arturo Cayetano-jaimes green washctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2020Ed. 2d 297 (1973); State v. Cayetano-Jaimes, 190 Wn. 2019App. 286, 296 , 359 P.3d 919 (2015). 3 O’Hagan only appeals his possession convictions. 4 51572-5-II We review a claim of a denial of the right to present a defense novo.	3	2016–2020
State v. Mee Hui Kim green washctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2020State v. Mee Hui Kim, 134 Wn. 2020State v. Mee Hui Kim, 134 Wn.	3	2013–2020
State v. Donald green washctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2019App. 907 , 911 n.1, 10 P.3d 504 (2000) (“‘Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has found none.”) (quoting DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126 , 372 P.2d 193 (1962)). 15 State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904 , 91 3-14, 16 P.3d 626 (2001). 16 State v. Donald, 178 Wn. 2016This court reviews a trial court's decision to exclude No. 73590-0-1/4 evidence for abuse of discretion.1 "State courts have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials."2 While the Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to present his defense,3 this right extends only to "'relevant evidence that is not otherwise inadmissible.'"4 "[A] criminal defendant has no constitutional right to have irrelevant evidence admitted in his or her defense."5 "The threshold to admit relevant evidence is very low."6 Evidence is relevant if it ha	3	2014–2019
State v. Smith green wash · 1984	3	2000–2019
State v. Ellis green wash · 1998	3	2007–2016
State v. Ellis green wash · 1998	3	2007–2016
State v. Thomas green washctapp · 2004	3	2005–2009
State v. Burri green wash · 1976	3	1994–1996
Delaware v. Van Arsdall green scotus · 1986	2	2019–2025
State of Washington v. Elisha John Young neutral washctapp · 2023	2	2024–2025
State v. Gregory red wash · 2006	2	2019–2025
State v. Lord green wash · 2007	2	2014–2024
State v. Lord green wash · 2007	2	2014–2024
State v. Clark green wash · 2017	2	2021–2023
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson green scotus · 1954	2	2017–2020
Taylor v. Illinois green scotus · 1988	2	2017–2020
State v. Strizheus green washctapp · 2011	2	2017–2020
United States v. Scheffer green scotus · 1998	2	2016–2019
State v. Atsbeha green wash · 2001	2	2016–2019
State v. Atsbeha green wash · 2001	2	2016–2019
State v. Clinton green washctapp · 1980	2	2017–2017
State v. Franklin green wash · 2014	2	2015–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (65) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (16) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (12) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.020 (12) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.160 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.005 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.68.035 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.010 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.050 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (8)

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

CA 205 (1928–2026) MI 199 (1936–2026) WA 188 (1927–2026) TX 118 (1974–2026) NY 106 (1891–2026) TN 102 (2000–2026) CT 92 (1935–2025) IL 87 (1949–2025) LA 77 (1959–2026) WI 47 (1988–2026) OH 46 (1979–2026) KS 41 (1905–2025) IN 41 (1952–2024) MN 37 (1988–2026) CO 31 (1894–2026) MA 24 (1978–2025) IA 23 (1992–2025) DC 20 (1979–2015) ID 19 (1978–2025) KY 18 (1924–2025) SC 15 (1986–2023) MD 15 (1977–2022) NC 14 (1976–2014) OR 13 (1982–2026) NM 11 (1988–2024) AL 11 (1896–2002) OK 10 (1998–2025) HI 10 (1936–2023) AZ 10 (1976–2022) PA 9 (1919–2025) WY 7 (1937–2025) NJ 7 (1988–2026) MO 7 (1932–2011) RI 7 (1981–2014) VT 6 (1983–2025) MT 5 (1935–2025) NE 5 (1989–2020) AK 5 (1997–2019) WV 4 (1987–2018) FL 4 (1982–2024) MS 4 (2006–2022) VA 4 (1985–2017) ND 3 (1980–2001) SD 3 (2009–2025) AR 3 (1922–1941) GA 3 (1998–2019) NH 2 (1985–2012) UT 2 (2014–2018) ME 2 (1983–2019) DE 2 (1989–2019)

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