for-cause challenge in Washington

22 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 10 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Martinez-Salazargreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 8 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 113 , 481 P.2d 629 (1971)). -7- No. 81212-2-I/8 In early 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Martinez-Salazar, holding that a defendant who elects to cure an erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge by exercising a peremptory challenge and “is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat . . . has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right.” 528 U.S. 304, 307, 317 , 120 S. Ct. 774 , 145 L. 2021App. 113 , 481 P.2d 629 (1971)). -7- No. 81212-2-I/8 In early 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Martinez-Salazar, holding that a defendant who elects to cure an erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge by exercising a peremptory challenge and “is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat . . . has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right.” 528 U.S. 304, 307, 317 , 120 S. Ct. 774 , 145 L.	1	8
State v. Schiermangreen wash · 2015 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021 2 sentences 2021If the challenged juror did not ultimately sit on the jury, the defendant cannot show prejudice.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is -9- No. 80807-9-I/10 Lindahl argues that Fire was based on federal constitutional law and therefore did not consider that the Washington Constitution guarantees greater protection. 2021If the challenged juror did not ultimately sit on the jury, the defendant cannot show prejudice.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is -9- No. 80807-9-I/10 Lindahl argues that Fire was based on federal constitutional law and therefore did not consider that the Washington Constitution guarantees greater protection.	1	3
United States v. Koren Kechedziangreen ca9 · 2018 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021App. at 278-79, 281-82 (where the circumstances as a whole indicated actual bias, the court erred in denying the defendant’s for-cause challenge, and because the biased juror sat on the jury, the conviction must be reversed); Kechedzian, 902 F.3d at 1026, 1031 (reversing the defendant’s conviction because a biased juror sat on the panel after the trial court denied the defendant’s for-cause challenge of that juror).	1	1
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	1
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	1
State v. Clarkgreen washctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure 2019App. 166, 194 , 283 P.3d 1116 (2012) (“A defendant must demonstrate prejudice as a result of the court’s failure to strike a juror for cause...	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
State v. Parnellred wash · 1969 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2021 2 sentences 2013We reversed Fire's convictions, noting that under State v. Parnell. 77 Wn.2d 503 , 463 P.2d 134 (1969), a trial court's erroneous denial of a for- cause challenge requires reversal regardless ofwhether the juror was ultimately removed by a peremptory challenge. 2013We reversed Fire's convictions, noting that under State v. Parnell. 77 Wn.2d 503 , 463 P.2d 134 (1969), a trial court's erroneous denial of a for- cause challenge requires reversal regardless ofwhether the juror was ultimately removed by a peremptory challenge.	1	2

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Fire green wash · 2001 2 sentences 2021After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge. - 11 - No. 81212-2-I/12 Id. at 158 (quoting Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 315 ). 2021Fire, 145 Wn.2d at 158 . -4- No. 80235-6-I/5 prejudice.	7	2010–2021
State v. Fire green wash · 2001 2 sentences 2021Lindahl urges us to follow State v. Parnell, 77 Wn.2d 503, 508 , 463 P.2d 134 (1969) abrogated by State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001). 2018United States v. Martinez-Salazar , 528 U.S. 304 , 307, 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 792 (2000) ; State v. Fire , 145 Wash.2d 152 , 154, 34 P.3d 1218 (2001).	5	2010–2021
State v. Gonzales green washctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2021In Gonzales, we determined that the trial court had erred in denying a for-cause challenge, resulting in the seating of a biased juror. 111 Wn. 2004After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge.") (emphasis added); State v. David, 118 Wash.App. 61 , 74 P.3d 686 (2003); and State v. Gonzales, 111 Wash.App. 276 , 45 P.3d 205 (2002), review denied, 148 Wash.2d 1012 , 62 P.3d 890 (2003). [36] This may have been an error.	4	2004–2021
State v. David green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2021In fact, the opposite is true, if a defendant exhausts his peremptory challenges to remove a juror after denial of a for- cause challenge, the defendant cannot then argue on appeal that he was prejudiced by the denial of the for-cause challenge, because the juror was not seated. - 12 - No. 81212-2-I/13 Id. 2004After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge.”) (emphasis added); State v. David, 118 Wn.	3	2004–2021
State v. Irby green washctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2024Rather, Perry leans into a statement from Division One in State v. Irby, 187 Wn. 2021Id. at 196 . - 16 - No. 81212-2-I/17 Peña Salvador argues that this case is analogous to Gonzales and Irby because Juror 44 “repeatedly stated that he was not sure if he could be fair” and “he was never able to assure the parties and the court that he could be fair.” He contends that the court failed to acknowledge that the prospective juror had expressed actual bias in favor of children.	2	2021–2024
Wainwright v. Witt green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2018Under the reasoning of Martinez-Salazar and Fire, a trial court's erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions or their oaths.'" Br. of Resp't at 88 (alteration in original)(quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 n.5). 2018Under the reasoning of Martinez-Salazar and Fire, a trial court's erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions or their oaths.'" Br. of Resp't at 88 (alteration in original)(quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 n.5).	2	2018–2018
State v. David neutral washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2004App. 61 , 74 P.3d 686 (2003); State v. Gonzales, 111 Wn. 2004After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge.") (emphasis added); State v. David, 118 Wash.App. 61 , 74 P.3d 686 (2003); and State v. Gonzales, 111 Wash.App. 276 , 45 P.3d 205 (2002), review denied, 148 Wash.2d 1012 , 62 P.3d 890 (2003). [36] This may have been an error.	2	2004–2004
State v. Jefferson green wash · 2018 1 sentence 2024App. 2d 586 , 521 P.3d 196 (2022), review denied, 1 Wn.3d 1006 , 526 P.3d 849 (2023); State v. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d 225 , 429 P.3d 467 (2018) (plurality opinion). 15 No.38980-4-III FEARING, C.J. (dissenting) — If a for-cause challenge cannot be sustained, counsel would be well advised to exercise restraint and accept the juror on the panel.	1	2024–2024
State v. Lormor green wash · 2011 1 sentence 2023Instead, the parties disagree as to whether the proceeding was closed. “[A] ‘closure’ of a courtroom occurs when the courtroom is completely and purposefully closed to spectators so that no one may enter and no one may leave.” Lormor, 172 Wn.2d at 93 .	1	2023–2023
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz green washctapp · 2020 1 sentence 2021Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn.	1	2021–2021
State v. Clark green wash · 2001 1 sentence 2021Clark, 143 Wn.2d at 763-64 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Dixon green orctapp · 1971 1 sentence 2021App. 113 , 481 P.2d 629 (1971)). -7- No. 81212-2-I/8 In early 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Martinez-Salazar, holding that a defendant who elects to cure an erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge by exercising a peremptory challenge and “is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat . . . has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right.” 528 U.S. 304, 307, 317 , 120 S. Ct. 774 , 145 L.	1	2021–2021
State v. Wilson green washctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2021Id. at 608 . 2021Id.	1	2021–2021
Batson v. Kentucky green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2018Batson, 476 U.S. at 87 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ("[c]ompetence to serve as a juror ultimately depends on an assessment of individual qualifications and ability impartially to consider evidence presented at a trial"). 2018Batson, 476 U.S. at 87 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ("[c]ompetence to serve as a juror ultimately depends on an assessment of individual qualifications and ability impartially to consider evidence presented at a trial").	1	2018–2018
State v. Fire green washctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2013Fire, 100 Wn.	1	2013–2013
United States v. Wood green scotus · 1936 2 sentences 2004The only complaint in the record on appeal, an amended one, names the State of Washington, but not the Department of Transportation. [37] RP (Mar. 1, 2002) at 3, 6. [38] Compare United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 , 57 S.Ct. 177 , 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936), in which the issue was constitutionality. 2004The only complaint in the record on appeal, an amended one, names the State of Washington, but not the Department of Transportation. [37] RP (Mar. 1, 2002) at 3, 6. [38] Compare United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 , 57 S.Ct. 177 , 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936), in which the issue was constitutionality.	1	2004–2004
State v. Gonzales green washctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2004After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge.") (emphasis added); State v. David, 118 Wash.App. 61 , 74 P.3d 686 (2003); and State v. Gonzales, 111 Wash.App. 276 , 45 P.3d 205 (2002), review denied, 148 Wash.2d 1012 , 62 P.3d 890 (2003). [36] This may have been an error.	1	2004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.130 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.95.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.95.030 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.190 (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

NY 39 (1997–2025) CA 29 (1994–2026) WA 22 (2001–2024) UT 21 (1991–2026) FL 19 (1999–2025) CO 12 (1997–2026) NV 12 (2014–2025) IN 11 (2002–2025) OH 9 (2008–2021) OR 9 (2020–2026) TX 8 (2007–2025) IA 6 (2015–2024) NJ 6 (1995–2025) MN 5 (2008–2017) AZ 5 (2001–2024) PA 5 (2012–2021) MT 4 (2018–2023) OK 3 (2003–2018) MA 3 (2022–2024) KS 3 (2001–2018) AL 2 (2010–2012) MI 2 (2021–2024) NC 2 (1998–2014) ID 2 (2014–2026) KY 2 (2021–2021) LA 2 (2008–2024) MO 2 (1992–1994) WY 2 (2018–2019)

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