scheme or plan exception in Washington

23 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 6 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. DeVincentisgreen wash · 2003 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023 2 sentences 2023App. at 453 ).12 “‘[C]aution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception.’” DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 18 (quoting State v. DeVincentis, 112 Wn. 2015This common scheme or plan requirement “need not be ‘a unique method of committing the crime.’” Id. (quoting DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 21 ).	3	7
People v. Ewoldtgreen cal · 1994 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1996–1998 2 sentences 1998Such evidence is admissible when it shows that a person committed "`markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances.'" Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 856 , 889 P.2d 487 (quoting People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 399 , 867 P.2d 757, 767 , 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 656 (1994)); see also State v. Carleton, 82 Wash.App. 680, 683 , 919 P.2d 128 (1996). 1998Such evidence is admissible when it shows that a person committed "`markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances.'" Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 856 , 889 P.2d 487 (quoting People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 399 , 867 P.2d 757, 767 , 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 656 (1994)); see also State v. Carleton, 82 Wash.App. 680, 683 , 919 P.2d 128 (1996).	3	3
State v. Carletongreen washctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998 2 sentences 1998Such evidence is admissible when it shows that a person committed "`markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances.'" Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 856 , 889 P.2d 487 (quoting People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 399 , 867 P.2d 757, 767 , 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 656 (1994)); see also State v. Carleton, 82 Wash.App. 680, 683 , 919 P.2d 128 (1996). 1998Such evidence is admissible when it shows that a person committed "`markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances.'" Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 856 , 889 P.2d 487 (quoting People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 399 , 867 P.2d 757, 767 , 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 656 (1994)); see also State v. Carleton, 82 Wash.App. 680, 683 , 919 P.2d 128 (1996).	2	2
James Douglas Devore v. United Statesgreen ca9 · 1966 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See De-Vore v. United States, 368 F.2d 396, 398 (9th Cir. 1966) (evidence of other bad acts deemed improperly admitted because, in view of the cumulative nature of the evidence, the "prejudice to appellants was not balanced by any substantial gain to the government’s case”). 1997See DeVore v. United States, 368 F.2d 396, 398 (9th Cir. 1966) (evidence of other bad acts deemed improperly admitted because, in view of the cumulative nature of the evidence, the "prejudice to appellants was not balanced by any substantial gain to the government's case").	2	2
State v. Vikegreen wash · 1994 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023State v. Williams, 135 Wn.2d 365 , 957 P.2d 216 (1998); State v. Vike, 125 Wn.2d 407, 411 (1994); State v. Calvert, 79 Wn.	1	1
State v. Harrisgreen washctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Compare Harris, 36 Wn.	1	1
State v. Foxhovengreen wash · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 179 (court permits evidence of prior misconduct for the purpose of identity, but not under the common scheme or plan exception); 5 KARL B.	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 (15)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. DeVincentis green washctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2023App. at 453 ).12 “‘[C]aution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception.’” DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 18 (quoting State v. DeVincentis, 112 Wn. 2014The Supreme Court agreed with Division One that Division Two had confused the common scheme or plan exception to ER 404(b) with the modus operandi exception to the rule, which requires evidence sufficiently unique and atypical of the way the crime is usually committed to serve as a “signature” and be probative of whether a crime was committed by a particular person. ¶32 While the split of authority was once again resolved in favor of admissibility by DeVincentis, it was with admonitions from the Supreme Court that “ ‘caution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception,’	5	2003–2023
State v. DeVincentis green washctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2023App. 152, 159 , 47 P.3d 606 (2002)). 2003Division One agreed, as do we, that "caution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception as defined in Lough." DeVincentis, 112 Wash.App. at 159 , 47 P.3d 606 .	4	2003–2023
State v. Lough green wash · 1995 2 sentences 1998The scheme or plan exception applies "when an individual devises a plan and uses it repeatedly to perpetrate separate but very similar crimes." Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 855 , 889 P.2d 487 . 1998The scheme or plan exception applies "when an individual devises a plan and uses it repeatedly to perpetrate separate but very similar crimes." Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 855 , 889 P.2d 487 .	4	1997–2002
State v. Dewey red washctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2014The Supreme Court agreed with Division One that Division Two had confused the common scheme or plan exception to ER 404(b) with the modus operandi exception to the rule, which requires evidence sufficiently unique and atypical of the way the crime is usually committed to serve as a “signature” and be probative of whether a crime was committed by a particular person. ¶32 While the split of authority was once again resolved in favor of admissibility by DeVincentis, it was with admonitions from the Supreme Court that “ ‘caution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception,’ 2014While the split of authority was once again resolved in favor of admissibility by De Vincentis, it was with admonitions from the Supreme Court that'" caution is called for in application of the common scheme or plan exception,'" id. at 18 (quoting State v. DeVincentis, 112 Wn.	2	2014–2014
State v. Wermerskirchen green minn · 1993 2 sentences 2002Lough, 125 Wn.2d at 858 n.15 (citing Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d at 240 ). 2002Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 858 n. 15, 889 P.2d 487 (citing Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d at 240 ).	2	2002–2002
State v. Williams green wash · 1998 1 sentence 2023State v. Williams, 135 Wn.2d 365 , 957 P.2d 216 (1998); State v. Vike, 125 Wn.2d 407, 411 (1994); State v. Calvert, 79 Wn.	1	2023–2023
State v. Calvert green washctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2023State v. Williams, 135 Wn.2d 365 , 957 P.2d 216 (1998); State v. Vike, 125 Wn.2d 407, 411 (1994); State v. Calvert, 79 Wn.	1	2023–2023
State v. Williams green wash · 1998 1 sentence 2023State v. Williams, 135 Wn.2d 365 , 957 P.2d 216 (1998); State v. Vike, 125 Wn.2d 407, 411 (1994); State v. Calvert, 79 Wn.	1	2023–2023
State v. Sexsmith green washctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2023Sexsmith, 138 Wn.	1	2023–2023
State v. Scherner green washctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2022See, e.g., DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 23-24 ; State v. Scherner, 153 Wn.	1	2022–2022
State v. Gresham green wash · 2012 1 sentence 2015This common scheme or plan requirement “need not be ‘a unique method of committing the crime.’” Id. (quoting DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 21 ).	1	2015–2015
State v. DeVincentis green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2013But in State v. DeMincentis. 15[0] Wn.2d 11, [ 74 P.3d 119 (2003)], which is a 2003 case, the Supreme Court basically said that incidents of sexual misconduct, even if they're 15 years apart, can still be evidence of a common scheme or plan.	1	2013–2013
State v. Krause green washctapp · 1996 1 sentence 1999State v. Krause, 82 Wn.	1	1999–1999
State v. Lough green washctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1994App. 302 , 316 n.7, 853 P.2d 920 , review granted, 122 Wn.2d 1022 (1993). 6 division Two has recently taken a narrower view of the common scheme or plan doctrine, holding that such evidence is inadmissible unless a common scheme or plan is actually an element of the crime charged.	1	1994–1994
State v. Stanton green washctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1994State v. Stanton, 68 Wn.	1	1994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (4)

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

SC 55 (1993–2025) MO 29 (1975–2008) WA 23 (1994–2023) MN 16 (1965–2016) IN 15 (1985–2011) CT 12 (1994–2016) OK 11 (1972–2024) MD 8 (1978–2024) NY 7 (1976–2021) DC 7 (1987–2005) AZ 6 (1975–2015) PA 6 (2010–2021) AL 5 (1988–2014) TN 5 (1977–2025) ID 4 (1991–2025) NC 2 (1982–1986) NJ 2 (2017–2025)

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