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 2015–2025 8 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. Emerygreen2 sentences2024Instead, the court has repeatedly instructed that “‘[r]eviewing courts should focus less on whether the prosecutor’s misconduct was flagrant or ill intentioned and more on whether the resulting prejudice could have been cured.’” State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 282, 299 , 505 P.3d 529 (2022) (quoting Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 762 ); see also State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (“We do not focus on the prosecutor’s subjective intent in committing misconduct, but 2 No. 39032-2-III State v. Bowers (Concurrence) instead on whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the pr 2015In such cases, "[ w]e do not focus on the prosecutor' s subjective intent in committing misconduct, but instead on whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection." Walker, 182 Wn.2d at 488 ( citing State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012)) ( emphasis added). 13 No. 46139 -1 - II Pardue argues that the prosecutor. engaged in misconduct when he argued that Pardue had not presented potential evidence related to his daughter' | 7 | 14 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2025The inquiry is “whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.” State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015). 2025The inquiry is “whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.” State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015). | 6 | 15 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. KARLOW
green
2 sentences2023That is, “ ‘whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.’ ” Id. at 75 (quoting State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015)). 2015In such cases, "[ w]e do not focus on the prosecutor' s subjective intent in committing misconduct, but instead on whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection." Walker, 182 Wn.2d at 488 ( citing State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012)) ( emphasis added). 13 No. 46139 -1 - II Pardue argues that the prosecutor. engaged in misconduct when he argued that Pardue had not presented potential evidence related to his daughter' | 4 | 2015–2023 |
In re Pers. Restraint of Phelps
green
2 sentences2024Our analysis focuses on “ ‘whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been 12 No. 84950-6-I (consol. with No. 85332-5-I)/13 cured with a timely objection.’ ” Id. at 75 (quoting State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015)). 2024Our analysis focuses on “ ‘whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.’ ” Id. at 75 (quoting State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015)). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Thorgerson
green
2 sentences2024“Under this heightened standard, the defendant must show that (1) ‘no curative instruction would have obviated any prejudicial effect on the jury’ and (2) the misconduct resulted in prejudice that ‘had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury verdict.’” Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 761 (quoting State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 455 , 258 P.3d 43 (2011)). 2020When an appellant fails to object at trial to the challenged conduct, and raises a misconduct issue for the first time on appeal, they must show the “misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned” that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice.22 We consider whether the appellant “received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.”23 We review Reed’s claim to determine if the prosecutor’s statements were flagrant and ill intentioned misconduc | 2 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Crossguns
green
2 sentences2024Instead, the court has repeatedly instructed that “‘[r]eviewing courts should focus less on whether the prosecutor’s misconduct was flagrant or ill intentioned and more on whether the resulting prejudice could have been cured.’” State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 282, 299 , 505 P.3d 529 (2022) (quoting Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 762 ); see also State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (“We do not focus on the prosecutor’s subjective intent in committing misconduct, but 2 No. 39032-2-III State v. Bowers (Concurrence) instead on whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the pr 2024Instead, the court has repeatedly instructed that “‘[r]eviewing courts should focus less on whether the prosecutor’s misconduct was flagrant or ill intentioned and more on whether the resulting prejudice could have been cured.’” State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 282, 299 , 505 P.3d 529 (2022) (quoting Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 762 ); see also State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (“We do not focus on the prosecutor’s subjective intent in committing misconduct, but 2 No. 39032-2-III State v. Bowers (Concurrence) instead on whether the defendant received a fair trial in light of the pr | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ish
green
2 sentences2020When an appellant fails to object at trial to the challenged conduct, and raises a misconduct issue for the first time on appeal, they must show the “misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned” that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice.22 We consider whether the appellant “received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.”23 We review Reed’s claim to determine if the prosecutor’s statements were flagrant and ill intentioned misconduc 2020When an appellant fails to object at trial to the challenged conduct, and raises a misconduct issue for the first time on appeal, they must show the “misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned” that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice.22 We consider whether the appellant “received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.”23 We review Reed’s claim to determine if the prosecutor’s statements were flagrant and ill intentioned misconduc | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Glasmann
green
1 sentence2020App. at 260 . 22 In re Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704 (citing Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443 (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994))). 23 State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (citing State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012)). 11 No. 78678-4-I/12 The prosecutor’s statements were prejudicial because they were opinions about Cheek and Reed’s credibility. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences2020App. at 260 . 22 In re Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704 (citing Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443 (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994))). 23 State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (citing State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012)). 11 No. 78678-4-I/12 The prosecutor’s statements were prejudicial because they were opinions about Cheek and Reed’s credibility. 2020App. at 260 . 22 In re Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704 (citing Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443 (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994))). 23 State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463, 478 , 341 P.3d 976 (2015) (citing State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762 , 278 P.3d 653 (2012)). 11 No. 78678-4-I/12 The prosecutor’s statements were prejudicial because they were opinions about Cheek and Reed’s credibility. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Vassar
green
1 sentence2020When an appellant fails to object at trial to the challenged conduct, and raises a misconduct issue for the first time on appeal, they must show the “misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned” that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice.22 We consider whether the appellant “received a fair trial in light of the prejudice caused by the violation of existing prosecutorial standards and whether that prejudice could have been cured with a timely objection.”23 We review Reed’s claim to determine if the prosecutor’s statements were flagrant and ill intentioned misconduc | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.