Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences2025State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994). 2015Even where the comments are improper, the remarks by the prosecutor are not grounds for reversal “if they were invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply to his or her acts and statements, unless the remarks are not a pertinent reply or are so prejudicial that a curative instruction would be ineffective.” Russell, 125 Wn.2d at 86 . ¶21 Viewed in the context of the evidence at trial and defense counsel’s closing remarks, the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing remarks constitute a fair response to defense counsel’s closing arguments. | 1 | 19 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2022See Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 566 . 2019State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 566 , 940 P.2d 546 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
State Of Washington, V. Robert M. Fleeks, Jr.green1 sentence2023See State v. Fleeks, __ Wn. App. 2d __, 523 P.3d 220, 241 (2023) (“Even improper statements are not a basis for reversal when they occur as a fair response to defense counsel’s arguments or where otherwise provoked.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gauthiergreen2 sentences2021He also said that A.W. “bald face lied.” Under Gauthier, the prosecutor’s comment was a fair response to the defense’s challenges to A.W.’s credibility. 189 Wn. App. at 38 . 2021Id. at 38 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Weber
green
2 sentences2019Improper remarks by the prosecutor are not grounds for reversal ‘if they were “ invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply to his or her acts and statements, unless the remarks are not a pertinent reply or are so prejudicial that a curative instruction would be ineffective.’” State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 276-77 , 149 P.3d 646 (2006) (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994)). “[lit is not misconduct for a prosecutor to argue the evidence does not support the defense theory; prosecutors are entitled to respond to defense counsel’s arguments.” In re Pers. 2019Improper remarks by the prosecutor are not grounds for reversal ‘if they were “ invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply to his or her acts and statements, unless the remarks are not a pertinent reply or are so prejudicial that a curative instruction would be ineffective.’” State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 276-77 , 149 P.3d 646 (2006) (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994)). “[lit is not misconduct for a prosecutor to argue the evidence does not support the defense theory; prosecutors are entitled to respond to defense counsel’s arguments.” In re Pers. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Knapp
green
2 sentences2013App. 101, 111 , 540 P.2d 898 (1975). 19 State v.Russell. 125 Wn.2d 24, 87 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994). 11 No. 68056-1-1/12 could pick any four times they believe the acts occurred as long as they agree on each act that occurred. 2013Although the prosecutor's argument may have been inartful at points, it was a fair response to defense counsel's argument.19 Finally, Whipple argues that the prosecutor improperly "put the onus on the jury to find four separate occurrences rather than acknowledging its burden to prove four separate acts." He identifies the prosecutor's argument that the jury 18 State v. Knapp. 14 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1988The Court affirmed this ruling, concluding that there is no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination when "the prosecutor's reference ... is a fair response to a claim made by defendant or his counsel..." Robinson, 108 S. Ct. at 869 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.
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.