jury unanimity instruction in Washington

18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2022 3 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
State v. Carsongreen washctapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015The Majority Incorrectly Holds That Defense Counsel’s Objection to the Unanimity Instruction Was a Legitimate Trial Strategy ¶56 The majority also concludes that defense counsel objected to the jury unanimity instruction because this “advanced the defense’s broader trial strategy.” According to the majority, this strategy was to “ ‘avoid[ ] discussing specific incidents ... and argue [ ] instead that [all of] CC’s testimony [lacked credibility].’ ” Majority at 219-20 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Carson, 179 Wn. 2015THE MAJORITY INCORRECTLY HOLDS THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S OBJECTION TO THE UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION WAS A LEGITIMATE TRIAL STRATEGY The majority also concludes that defense counsel objected to the jury unanimity instruction because this "advanced the defense's broader trial strategy." According to the majority, this strategy was to "'avoid[] discussing specific incidents ... and argue[] instead that [all of] C.C.'s testimony [lacked credibility]."' Majority at 12 (quoting State v. Carson, 179 Wn.	1	2
State v. Mutchgreen wash · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 663 (2011); State v. Borsheim, 140 Wn.	1	1
State v. Borsheimgreen washctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 663 (2011); State v. Borsheim, 140 Wn. 2022State v. Borsheim, 140 Wn.	1	1
State v. Sandholmgreen wash · 2015 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See id. 15 No. 54258-7-II/55021-1-II convictions.	1	1
State v. Noltiegreen wash · 1991 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 846 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991); Vander Houwen, 163 Wn.2d at 37-38 . ¶61 For these reasons, I would hold that defense counsel’s objection to a jury unanimity instruction constituted deficient performance. 2015See State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 846 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991); Vander Houwen, 163 Wn.2d at 37-38 . ¶61 For these reasons, I would hold that defense counsel’s objection to a jury unanimity instruction constituted deficient performance.	1	1
State v. Whitneygreen wash · 1987 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement. 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement.	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 (18)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Locke green washctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2021State v. Locke, 175 Wn. 2019State v. Locke, 175 Wn.	2	2019–2021
State v. Simon green washctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement. 2007*App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement.	2	2007–2007
State v. Kinchen green washctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2001He asserts that he is entitled to a jury unanimity instruction under State v. Kinchen, 92 Wash. App. 442 , 963 P.2d 928 (1998), and because there is not sufficient evidence to support each alternative means, he is entitled to dismissal under State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wash.2d 702 , 881 P.2d 231 (1994). 2001He asserts that he is entitled to a jury unanimity instruction under State v. Kinchen, 92 Wn.	2	2001–2001
State v. Ortega-Martinez green wash · 1994 2 sentences 2001He asserts that he is entitled to a jury unanimity instruction under State v. Kinchen, 92 Wash. App. 442 , 963 P.2d 928 (1998), and because there is not sufficient evidence to support each alternative means, he is entitled to dismissal under State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wash.2d 702 , 881 P.2d 231 (1994). 2001He asserts that he is entitled to a jury unanimity instruction under State v. Kinchen, 92 Wash. App. 442 , 963 P.2d 928 (1998), and because there is not sufficient evidence to support each alternative means, he is entitled to dismissal under State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wash.2d 702 , 881 P.2d 231 (1994).	2	2001–2001
State v. Kiser green washctapp · 1997 1 sentence 2020State v. Kiser, 87 Wn.	1	2020–2020
State v. Peterson green washctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2018Sefton cites Nonoq and State v. Peterson, 174 Wn.	1	2018–2018
State v. Kitchen green wash · 2004 1 sentence 2017Id.	1	2017–2017
State v. Petrich red wash · 1984 2 sentences 2015At the conclusion of testimony, defense counsel requested a jury unanimity instruction for each count pursuant to State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P.2d 173 (1984). 2015At the conclusion of testimony, defense counsel requested a jury unanimity instruction for each count pursuant to State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572 , 683 P.2d 173 (1984).	1	2015–2015
State v. Vander Houwen green wash · 2008 1 sentence 2015See State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 846 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991); Vander Houwen, 163 Wn.2d at 37-38 . ¶61 For these reasons, I would hold that defense counsel’s objection to a jury unanimity instruction constituted deficient performance.	1	2015–2015
State v. Laico green washctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2013App. 215, 219-20 , 27 P.3d 228 (2001) (statutory definition of "threat" does not create additional elements of the crime of intimidating a witness and a jury unanimity instruction was not required); State v. Laico, 97 Wn. 2013App. 759, 764 , 987 P.2d 638 (1999) (statutory definition of "great bodily harm" does not add an element to the assault statute, rather it is intended to provide No. 68836-7-1/5 understanding).	1	2013–2013
State v. Marko green washctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2013App. 215, 219-20 , 27 P.3d 228 (2001) (statutory definition of "threat" does not create additional elements of the crime of intimidating a witness and a jury unanimity instruction was not required); State v. Laico, 97 Wn.	1	2013–2013
State v. Brown green washctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2013Brown, 159 Wn.App. at 13 15 ( olding that the defendant's actions - h constituted a continuous course of conduct and thus the trial court did not err in failing to require a jury unanimity instruction when the prosecution charged five violations of a no- contact order and there was evidence of,at a minimum, 37 acts).Tek does not argue that his actions constitute a continuous course of conduct,but only challenges them under a unit of prosecution analysis. 14 No. 42227 1 II Cons.	1	2013–2013
State v. Franco green wash · 1982 2 sentences 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement. 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement.	1	2007–2007
State v. Green green wash · 1980 2 sentences 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement. 2007State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 230-35 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980); accord State v. Whitney, 108 Wash.2d 506, 511 , 739 P.2d 1150 (1987); State v. Franco, 96 Wash.2d 816, 823 , 639 P.2d 1320 (1982); State v. Simon, 631 64 Wash.App. 948, 961 , 831 P.2d 139 (1991). ¶ 18 Washington jurisprudence has produced two distinct lines of analysis regarding the jury unanimity requirement.	1	2007–2007
State v. Crediford green wash · 1996 2 sentences 1997In the wake of State v. Crediford, 130 Wn.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129 (1996), they challenge the jury instructions and criminal complaint, arguing that the instructions and complaint omitted Crediford’s "implied element.” In addition, Norby argues that a jury unanimity instruction was required. 1997Before State v. Crediford, 130 Wn.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129 (1996), was decided, Norby appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury unanimity instruction because the DWI ordinance actually defines two separate crimes rather than two alternative means of committing the same crime.	1	1997–1997
State v. Crediford green wash · 1996 2 sentences 1997In the wake of State v. Crediford, 130 Wn.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129 (1996), they challenge the jury instructions and criminal complaint, arguing that the instructions and complaint omitted Crediford’s "implied element.” In addition, Norby argues that a jury unanimity instruction was required. 1997Before State v. Crediford, 130 Wn.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129 (1996), was decided, Norby appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury unanimity instruction because the DWI ordinance actually defines two separate crimes rather than two alternative means of committing the same crime.	1	1997–1997
State v. Camarillo green wash · 1990 1 sentence 1997Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d at 63-64 .	1	1997–1997
State v. Ingham green washctapp · 1980 1 sentence 1986Sufficiency of the Evidence First, relying primarily upon State v. Ingham, 26 Wn.	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.110 (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

TX 61 (2002–2025) LA 30 (2021–2024) WA 18 (1986–2022) TN 16 (2001–2019) CA 14 (1975–2025) UT 11 (1998–2026) OR 11 (1993–2023) WI 10 (1993–2024) MO 5 (2017–2023) IL 5 (1985–1997) KS 5 (2006–2022) NC 5 (1984–2015) OH 4 (2008–2023) HI 4 (1999–2021) FL 2 (1996–2024) AK 2 (2014–2018) AZ 2 (2005–2005)

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

Your account

Appearance