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.
23 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Charltongreen2 sentences2012See Monday, 171 Wn.2d at 678-80 (racist arguments required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d at 507-10 (inflammatory remarks associating defendant with an organization the prosecutor described as “ ‘deadly group of madmen’ ”; misconduct required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 664 (prosecutor commented on the defendant’s spouse’s failure to testify, despite the marital privilege, with the inference being that the defendant was concealing or withholding testimony; reversal required — jury might have been inclined to belie 2004Easter, 130 Wn.2d at 242 (officer’s testimony was “elicited to insinuate Easter’s guilt”); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 663 (“[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest. . . that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony.”); Swan, 25 Wn.2d at 327 (“In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state.”); McGinty, 14 Wn.2d at 79 (holding the State’s questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke the marital privilege in front of the jury “tended to make it appear | 2 | 3 |
Dean S. v. Frederick S.green2 sentences2018See In re Parentage of C.S., 134 Wn. 2018See In re Parentage of C.S., 134 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Swangreen2 sentences2004Easter, 130 Wn.2d at 242 (officer’s testimony was “elicited to insinuate Easter’s guilt”); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 663 (“[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest. . . that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony.”); Swan, 25 Wn.2d at 327 (“In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state.”); McGinty, 14 Wn.2d at 79 (holding the State’s questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke the marital privilege in front of the jury “tended to make it appear 2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke | 1 | 4 |
State v. McGintygreen2 sentences2004Easter, 130 Wn.2d at 242 (officer’s testimony was “elicited to insinuate Easter’s guilt”); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 663 (“[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest. . . that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony.”); Swan, 25 Wn.2d at 327 (“In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state.”); McGinty, 14 Wn.2d at 79 (holding the State’s questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke the marital privilege in front of the jury “tended to make it appear 2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke | 1 | 3 |
State v. Eastergreen2 sentences2004Easter, 130 Wn.2d at 242 (officer’s testimony was “elicited to insinuate Easter’s guilt”); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 663 (“[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest. . . that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony.”); Swan, 25 Wn.2d at 327 (“In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state.”); McGinty, 14 Wn.2d at 79 (holding the State’s questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke the marital privilege in front of the jury “tended to make it appear 2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke | 1 | 2 |
State v. Waleczekgreen2 sentences1987This exception reflects the Legislature's decision to subordinate the marital privilege to the "overriding and paramount legislative intent to protect children from physical and sexual abuse." State v. Waleczek, 90 Wn.2d 746, 751 , 585 P.2d 797 (1978); accord, State v. Bouchard, 31 Wn. 1987This exception reflects the Legislature's decision to subordinate the marital privilege to the "overriding and paramount legislative intent to protect children from physical and sexual abuse." State v. Waleczek, 90 Wn.2d 746, 751 , 585 P.2d 797 (1978); accord, State v. Bouchard, 31 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Tannergreen2 sentences1966Appellant relies on certain language in State v. Swan, 25 Wn.2d 319 , 171 P.2d 222 , and State v. Tanner, 54 Wn.2d 535 , 341 P.2d 869 , in which the protection given by the marital privilege was likened to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by Const, art. 1, § 9. 1966Appellant relies on certain language in State v. Swan, 25 Wn.2d 319 , 171 P.2d 222 , and State v. Tanner, 54 Wn.2d 535 , 341 P.2d 869 , in which the protection given by the marital privilege was likened to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by Const, art. 1, § 9. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Belgardegreen1 sentence2012See Monday, 171 Wn.2d at 678-80 (racist arguments required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d at 507-10 (inflammatory remarks associating defendant with an organization the prosecutor described as “ ‘deadly group of madmen’ ”; misconduct required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 664 (prosecutor commented on the defendant’s spouse’s failure to testify, despite the marital privilege, with the inference being that the defendant was concealing or withholding testimony; reversal required — jury might have been inclined to belie | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mondaygreen1 sentence2012See Monday, 171 Wn.2d at 678-80 (racist arguments required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d at 507-10 (inflammatory remarks associating defendant with an organization the prosecutor described as “ ‘deadly group of madmen’ ”; misconduct required reversal; no weighing of evidence by the court); Charlton, 90 Wn.2d at 664 (prosecutor commented on the defendant’s spouse’s failure to testify, despite the marital privilege, with the inference being that the defendant was concealing or withholding testimony; reversal required — jury might have been inclined to belie | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bouchardgreen2 sentences1987This exception reflects the Legislature's decision to subordinate the marital privilege to the "overriding and paramount legislative intent to protect children from physical and sexual abuse." State v. Waleczek, 90 Wn.2d 746, 751 , 585 P.2d 797 (1978); accord, State v. Bouchard, 31 Wn. 1987App. 381, 387 , 639 P.2d 761 , review denied, 97 Wn.2d 1021 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogersgreen1 sentence1984See Seventh Elect Church v. Rogers, 34 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bromleygreen2 sentences1979See State v. Bromley, 72 Wn.2d 150 , 432 P.2d 568 (1967). 1979See State v. Bromley, 72 Wn.2d 150 , 432 P.2d 568 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 38 . 2005Id. at 38 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences1958State v. Clark, 26 Wn. (2d) 160, 173 P. (2d) 189 (1946) . 1953State v. Clark, 26 Wn. (2d) 160, 173 P. (2d) 189 (1946). | 2 | 1953–1958 |
State v. Modica
green
2 sentences2014As the State argues, Blair has failed to 30 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 31 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 32 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 33 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89 . 34 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89. 35 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89 n.1, 90. 19 No. 68971-1-1/20 establish a marital privilege because engaging in conversation in the presence of others vitiates a privilege. 2014As the State argues, Blair has failed to 30 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 31 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 32 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 88 . 33 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89 . 34 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89. 35 Modica. 164 Wn.2d at 89 n.1, 90. 19 No. 68971-1-1/20 establish a marital privilege because engaging in conversation in the presence of others vitiates a privilege. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sumpter v. National Grocery Co.
neutral
2 sentences2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke 2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Easter
green
1 sentence2004Easter, 130 Wash.2d at 242 , 922 P.2d 1285 (officer's testimony was "elicited to insinuate Easter's guilt"); Charlton, 90 Wash.2d at 663 , 585 P.2d 142 ("[T]he prosecutor endeavored to suggest ... that petitioner was concealing or withholding testimony."); Swan, 25 Wash.2d at 327 , 171 P.2d 222 ("In effect [counsel for the State] told the jury that appellant was guilty of concealing evidence which would be helpful to the state."); McGinty, 14 Wash.2d at 79 , 126 P.2d 1086 (holding the State's questions regarding the timing of the marriage and fact that the State forced the defendant to invoke | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Burden
green
2 sentences1997The marital privilege is contained in RCW 5.60.060(1), which provides that neither a husband nor a wife can testify for or against the other spouse without the spouse’s consent. 3 State v. Burden, 120 Wn.2d 371, 373-74 , 841 P.2d 758 (1992). 1997The marital privilege is contained in RCW 5.60.060(1), which provides that neither a husband nor a wife can testify for or against the other spouse without the spouse’s consent. 3 State v. Burden, 120 Wn.2d 371, 373-74 , 841 P.2d 758 (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Thornton
green
2 sentences1997RCW 5.60.060(1); State v. Thornton, 119 Wn.2d 578, 580 , 835 P.2d 216 (1992); State v. Waleczek, 90 Wn.2d 746, 749 , 585 P.2d 797 (1978). 1997RCW 5.60.060(1); State v. Thornton, 119 Wn.2d 578, 580 , 835 P.2d 216 (1992); State v. Waleczek, 90 Wn.2d 746, 749 , 585 P.2d 797 (1978). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Cory
green
1 sentence1988In assessing the proper remedy, I have considered the case of State v. Cory, 62 Wash 2d 371, 382 P. 2d 1019 (1963) . . . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Hermes
green
2 sentences1983Thus, Priscilla Rogers must be sworn and answer all relevant questions within her personal knowledge which are not confidential communications, State v. Hermes, 71 Wn.2d 56, 58 , 426 P.2d 494 (1967), unless she can establish a clear danger of self-incrimination as to herself with respect to each question. 1983Thus, Priscilla Rogers must be sworn and answer all relevant questions within her personal knowledge which are not confidential communications, State v. Hermes, 71 Wn.2d 56, 58 , 426 P.2d 494 (1967), unless she can establish a clear danger of self-incrimination as to herself with respect to each question. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Frankenthal v. Solomonson
neutral
2 sentences1983The court held the marital privilege inapplicable since such a construction would completely nullify the statute authorizing supplemental proceedings in aid of execution, which statute "expressly provides that a judgment debtor may be required to appear in court and answer concerning property which he unjustly refuses to apply towards the satisfaction of the judgment." Belknap , at 4; cf. Frankenthal v. Solomonson, 20 Wash. 460 , 55 P. 754 (1899) (holding that a husband, the judgment debtor, could not assert the marital privilege in a supplemental proceeding initiated solely against his wife t 1983The court held the marital privilege inapplicable since such a construction would completely nullify the statute authorizing supplemental proceedings in aid of execution, which statute "expressly provides that a judgment debtor may be required to appear in court and answer concerning property which he unjustly refuses to apply towards the satisfaction of the judgment." Belknap , at 4; cf. Frankenthal v. Solomonson, 20 Wash. 460 , 55 P. 754 (1899) (holding that a husband, the judgment debtor, could not assert the marital privilege in a supplemental proceeding initiated solely against his wife t | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Lounsbery
green
2 sentences1982State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wn.2d 659, 663 , 445 P.2d 1017 (1968). 1982State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wn.2d 659, 663 , 445 P.2d 1017 (1968). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Yamauchi v. Department of Employment Security
neutral
2 sentences1982Yamauchi v. Department of Employment Security, 28 Wn. 1982Yamauchi v. Department of Employment Security, 28 Wn. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Gant
green
1 sentence1978State v. McGinty, supra; State v. Tanner, supra; State v. Swan, 25 Wn.2d 319 , 171 P.2d 222 (1946); State v. Gant, 6 Wn. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Osborne
green
1 sentence1978This argument is based upon State v. Osborne, 18 Wn. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
United States v. Harris
green
1 sentence1972Ed. 2d 723 , 91 S. Ct. 2075 (1971). 2 The letter testified to by Mrs. Hughes and the testimony of Harold Sheridan were not inadmissible under the marital privilege. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Robbins
green
1 sentence1953Stat., § 1214]. *506 The Washington rule regarding the marital privilege is as stated in State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485 , 147 Pac. 38 : “The divorced wife was a competent witness against the appellant, except as to communications made by one to the other during the marriage. . . . “ ‘Any communication,’ as mentioned in the statute, means confidential communications, or such as are induced by the marriage relation.” As to what are communications to which a divorced wife cannot testify against her husband, the court in State v. Robbins, 35 Wn. (2d) 389, 213 P. (2d) 310 , said: “However, there are | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Snyder
green
2 sentences1953Stat., § 1214]. *506 The Washington rule regarding the marital privilege is as stated in State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485 , 147 Pac. 38 : “The divorced wife was a competent witness against the appellant, except as to communications made by one to the other during the marriage. . . . “ ‘Any communication,’ as mentioned in the statute, means confidential communications, or such as are induced by the marriage relation.” As to what are communications to which a divorced wife cannot testify against her husband, the court in State v. Robbins, 35 Wn. (2d) 389, 213 P. (2d) 310 , said: “However, there are 1953Stat., § 1214]. *506 The Washington rule regarding the marital privilege is as stated in State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485 , 147 Pac. 38 : “The divorced wife was a competent witness against the appellant, except as to communications made by one to the other during the marriage. . . . “ ‘Any communication,’ as mentioned in the statute, means confidential communications, or such as are induced by the marriage relation.” As to what are communications to which a divorced wife cannot testify against her husband, the court in State v. Robbins, 35 Wn. (2d) 389, 213 P. (2d) 310 , said: “However, there are | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.