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.
18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 5 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. Valenciagreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); People v. Hampton, 363 Ill. 2007See, e.g., State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); People v. Hampton, 363 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Arizona v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); Colorado v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct.App.2004); Connecticut v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); Illinois v. Hampton, 363 Ill.App.3d 293, 300-01 , 299 Ill.Dec. 772 , 842 N.E.2d 1124 (2006); Iowa v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Iowa 2000); Kansas v. Meeks, 277 Kan. 609, 613-14 , 88 P.3d 789 (2004); Edwards, 444 Mass. at 532-33 , 830 N.E.2d 158 ; Michigan v. Harrington, 472 Mich. 854, 855-56 , 691 N.W.2d 436 (2005); Minnesota v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208, 213-14 (Minn.1980); New Jersey v. Sheppa 2007See, e.g., State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); People v. Hampton, 363 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fallentinegreen2 sentences2021In Fallentine, the court held that statements made by a witness, Clark, were properly admitted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. 149 Wn. 2012See State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 170 , 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). 149 Wash.App. at 623 -24 n. 34, 215 P.3d 945 . ¶ 31 In Giles , the Supreme Court suggested that indeed the defendant has waived any *330 hearsay objections when the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies: No case or treatise that we have found however, suggested that a defendant who committed wrongdoing forfeited his confrontation rights but not his hearsay rights. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Donald Laverne Carlson, United States of America v. Gary Clarend Hofstadgreen1 sentence2016Forfeiture occurs “when clear, cogent, and convincing evidence shows that the witness has been made unavailable by the wrongdoing of the defendant and that the defendant engaged in the wrongful conduct with the intention to prevent the witness from testifying.” State v. Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d 1, 11 , 320 P.3d 705 (2014). 9 “ ‘To permit the defendant to profit from such conduct would be contrary to public policy, common sense *682 and the underlying purpose of the confrontation clause.’ ” Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d at 5 (quoting United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1359 (8th Cir. 1976)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frasergreen1 sentence2013See State v. Fraser. 170 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 170 , 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). 149 Wash.App. at 623 -24 n. 34, 215 P.3d 945 . ¶ 31 In Giles , the Supreme Court suggested that indeed the defendant has waived any *330 hearsay objections when the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies: No case or treatise that we have found however, suggested that a defendant who committed wrongdoing forfeited his confrontation rights but not his hearsay rights. 2012See State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 170 , 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). 149 Wash.App. at 623 -24 n. 34, 215 P.3d 945 . ¶ 31 In Giles , the Supreme Court suggested that indeed the defendant has waived any *330 hearsay objections when the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies: No case or treatise that we have found however, suggested that a defendant who committed wrongdoing forfeited his confrontation rights but not his hearsay rights. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Nelson, 74 Wash.App. 380, 387 , 874 P.2d 170 (1994) (discussing reliability factors for assessing prior inconsistent statements). ¶ 29 In Mason, our supreme court adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, explaining: Forfeiture is grounded in equity—the notion that people cannot complain of the natural and generally intended consequences of their actions. 2012See State v. Nelson, 74 Wash.App. 380, 387 , 874 P.2d 170 (1994) (discussing reliability factors for assessing prior inconsistent statements). ¶ 29 In Mason, our supreme court adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, explaining: Forfeiture is grounded in equity—the notion that people cannot complain of the natural and generally intended consequences of their actions. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fallentinegreen1 sentence2012See State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 170 , 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). 149 Wash.App. at 623 -24 n. 34, 215 P.3d 945 . ¶ 31 In Giles , the Supreme Court suggested that indeed the defendant has waived any *330 hearsay objections when the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies: No case or treatise that we have found however, suggested that a defendant who committed wrongdoing forfeited his confrontation rights but not his hearsay rights. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hallumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Blackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mechlinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Morgangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Masongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Masongreen | 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. Mason
green
2 sentences2025To determine whether statements made by an unavailable witness are nevertheless admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, “the trial court must decide whether the witness has been made unavailable by the wrongdoing of the accused based upon evidence that is clear, cogent, and convincing.” Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 927 . 2023But the confrontation right is subject to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, as recognized by our Supreme Court in State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 926 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) and clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , 128 S. Ct. 2678 , 171 L. | 8 | 2012–2025 |
State v. Dobbs
green
2 sentences2026Under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, “a criminal defendant forfeits [the] right [to confrontation] when [they] cause[] the witness to be unavailable.” State v. Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 320 P.3d 705 (2014). 2026Under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, “a criminal defendant forfeits [the] right [to confrontation] when [they] cause[] the witness to be unavailable.” State v. Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 320 P.3d 705 (2014). | 7 | 2016–2026 |
Giles v. California
green
2 sentences2026Ed. 2d 488 (2008)). 31 No. 59315-7-II The forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine applies “when clear, cogent, and convincing evidence shows that the witness has been made unavailable by the wrongdoing of the defendant and that the defendant engaged in the wrongful conduct with the intention to prevent the witness from testifying.” Id. 2023But the confrontation right is subject to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, as recognized by our Supreme Court in State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 926 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) and clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , 128 S. Ct. 2678 , 171 L. | 6 | 2012–2026 |
State Of Washington, Res. v. Jenaro De Jesus Hernandez, App.
green
2 sentences2025App. 673, 686 , 368 P.3d 500 (2016), this court held that statements were admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine when the criminal defendant used coded language to conspire with the witness’ mother to take the witness, a child, out of the country so the child was unavailable to testify. 2020App. 673, 686 , 368 P.3d 500 (2016), this court held that statements were admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine when the criminal defendant used coded language to conspire with the witness’s mother to take the witness, a child, out of the country so the child was unavailable to testify. | 4 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Mason
green
2 sentences2023But the confrontation right is subject to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, as recognized by our Supreme Court in State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 926 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) and clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , 128 S. Ct. 2678 , 171 L. 2021A. Legal Principles Our Supreme Court adopted the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in 2007, in State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 925 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007). | 4 | 2012–2023 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences2007More recently, and more bluntly, an appellate court in Connecticut defended the doctrine with the quip, “ ‘[t]hough justice may be blind it is not stupid.’ ” State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 533 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003) (quoting State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 173 , 448 A.2d 837 (1982)). ¶26 We agree that equity compels adopting the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. 2007More recently, and more bluntly, an appellate court in Connecticut defended the doctrine with the quip, “ ‘[t]hough justice may be blind it is not stupid.’ ” State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 533 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003) (quoting State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 173 , 448 A.2d 837 (1982)). ¶26 We agree that equity compels adopting the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. | 4 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Welfare of Sego
green
2 sentences2025Because the standard of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the fact at issue here, whether Bigalk intentionally caused 6 No. 59334-3-II Martin’s absence from trial, must be shown to be “ ‘highly probable.’ ” Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d at 11 (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). 2025Because the standard of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the fact at issue here, whether Bigalk intentionally caused 6 No. 59334-3-II Martin’s absence from trial, must be shown to be “ ‘highly probable.’ ” Dobbs, 180 Wn.2d at 11 (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). | 3 | 2014–2025 |
State v. Dobbs
neutral
2 sentences2018“The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing holds that a criminal defendant waives his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights if the defendant is responsible for the witness’s 13 No. 34959-4-III State v. Williams absence at trial.” State v. Dobbs, 167 Wn. 2018App. 905, 912 , 276 P.3d 324 (2012) (Dobbs I) (citing Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 924 ), aff’d, 180 Wn.2d 1 , 320 P.3d 705 (2014) (Dobbs II). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [2] We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), at the time the court found that Ms. Greer's statements were nontestimonial. [3] Almost 20 states have adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. 2007NOTES [1] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [2] We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), at the time the court found that Ms. Greer's statements were nontestimonial. [3] Almost 20 states have adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. | 2 | 2007–2012 |
People v. Hampton
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Arizona v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); Colorado v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct.App.2004); Connecticut v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); Illinois v. Hampton, 363 Ill.App.3d 293, 300-01 , 299 Ill.Dec. 772 , 842 N.E.2d 1124 (2006); Iowa v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Iowa 2000); Kansas v. Meeks, 277 Kan. 609, 613-14 , 88 P.3d 789 (2004); Edwards, 444 Mass. at 532-33 , 830 N.E.2d 158 ; Michigan v. Harrington, 472 Mich. 854, 855-56 , 691 N.W.2d 436 (2005); Minnesota v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208, 213-14 (Minn.1980); New Jersey v. Sheppa 2007See, e.g., State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 498 , 924 P.2d 497 (1996); People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 525-26 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003); People v. Hampton, 363 Ill. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [2] We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), at the time the court found that Ms. Greer's statements were nontestimonial. [3] Almost 20 states have adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. 2007NOTES [1] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [2] We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), at the time the court found that Ms. Greer's statements were nontestimonial. [3] Almost 20 states have adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 787694
green
2 sentences2007Although New York had recognized the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the court refused to apply it to the present facts, as application of the rule "would require the trial court . . . to decide the ultimate question for the jury in the same case, i.e., whether the defendant caused the victim's death." Id. at 462 , 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004 , 677 N.E.2d 728 (footnote omitted). ¶ 67 United States v. Lentz, 282 F.Supp.2d 399 (2002), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds by 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.2004), presents facts similar to the case at bar. 2007The government argued the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applied to all of Ms. Lentz’s statements because the defendant had “procured the unavailability of Ms. Lentz by killing her.” Id. at 426 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Altrui
green
2 sentences2007More recently, and more bluntly, an appellate court in Connecticut defended the doctrine with the quip, “ ‘[t]hough justice may be blind it is not stupid.’ ” State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 533 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003) (quoting State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 173 , 448 A.2d 837 (1982)). ¶26 We agree that equity compels adopting the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. 2007More recently, and more bluntly, an appellate court in Connecticut defended the doctrine with the quip, “ ‘[t]hough justice may be blind it is not stupid.’ ” State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 533 , 820 A.2d 1076 (2003) (quoting State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 173 , 448 A.2d 837 (1982)). ¶26 We agree that equity compels adopting the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Lentz
green
2 sentences2007Although New York had recognized the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the court refused to apply it to the present facts, as application of the rule "would require the trial court . . . to decide the ultimate question for the jury in the same case, i.e., whether the defendant caused the victim's death." Id. at 462 , 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004 , 677 N.E.2d 728 (footnote omitted). ¶ 67 United States v. Lentz, 282 F.Supp.2d 399 (2002), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds by 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.2004), presents facts similar to the case at bar. 2007Although New York had recognized the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the court refused to apply it to the present facts, as application of the rule “would require the trial court... to decide the ultimate question for the jury in the same case, i.e., whether the defendant caused the victim’s death.” Id. at 462 (footnote omitted). ¶67 United States v. Lentz, 282 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences2023Furthermore, a witness is unavailable only if the prosecution “made a good- faith effort to obtain [the witness’s] presence at trial.” State v. Hacheney, 160 Wn.2d 503, 521 , 158 P.3d 1152 (2007) (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 , 20 L. 2023Furthermore, a witness is unavailable only if the prosecution “made a good- faith effort to obtain [the witness’s] presence at trial.” State v. Hacheney, 160 Wn.2d 503, 521 , 158 P.3d 1152 (2007) (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 , 20 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hacheney
green
1 sentence2023Furthermore, a witness is unavailable only if the prosecution “made a good- faith effort to obtain [the witness’s] presence at trial.” State v. Hacheney, 160 Wn.2d 503, 521 , 158 P.3d 1152 (2007) (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 , 20 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hacheney
green
1 sentence2023Furthermore, a witness is unavailable only if the prosecution “made a good- faith effort to obtain [the witness’s] presence at trial.” State v. Hacheney, 160 Wn.2d 503, 521 , 158 P.3d 1152 (2007) (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 , 20 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Tyler
green
1 sentence2021App. 120, 128 , 155 P.3d 1002 (2007). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tyler
green
1 sentence2021The forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine requires that: “(1) the defendant engaged in wrongdoing; (2) the wrongdoing was intended to render the absent witness unavailable at trial; and (3) the wrongdoing did, in fact, render the witness unavailable at trial.” State v. Tyler, 138 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Koslowski
green
1 sentence2016This is so, he asserts, both because the “State did not satisfy the ‘wrongdoing’ requirement,” 6 and because the witnesses were not “unavailable” as evidenced by “the State [’s] fail [ure] to engage in reasonable, good faith efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence at trial.” 7 We disagree. *681 ¶15 “The Sixth Amendment provides that ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ” State v. Koslowski, 166 Wn.2d 409, 417 , 209 P.3d 479 (2009) (alterations in original) (quoting U.S. Const, amend. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Koslowski
green
1 sentence2016This is so, he asserts, both because the “State did not satisfy the ‘wrongdoing’ requirement,” 6 and because the witnesses were not “unavailable” as evidenced by “the State [’s] fail [ure] to engage in reasonable, good faith efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence at trial.” 7 We disagree. *681 ¶15 “The Sixth Amendment provides that ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ” State v. Koslowski, 166 Wn.2d 409, 417 , 209 P.3d 479 (2009) (alterations in original) (quoting U.S. Const, amend. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Murray v. EDWARDS CTY. SHERIFF'S DEPT.
green
1 sentence2012State v. Mason, 160 Wash.2d 910, 924 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1035 , 128 S.Ct. 2430 , *328 171 L.Ed.2d 235 (2008). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Commonwealth v. Edwards green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Gonzalez v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Alvarez-Lopez green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Meeks green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Sheppard green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. MAHER (KENNETH) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Harrington neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Geraci green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Commonwealth v. Paddy green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Hand green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Ivy green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.