Green standard in Washington

1992The court later granted Mr. Green's motion for reconsideration in light of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 61 L.

1992The court later granted Mr. Green's motion for reconsideration in light of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 61 L.

2015Ervin, 158 Wn.2d at 752 -53 (citing Green, 355 U.S. 184 ).

2015Ervin, 158 Wn.2d at 752 -53 (citing Green, 355 U.S. 184 ).

2015Ervin, 158 Wn.2d at 752 -53 (citing Green, 355 U.S. 184 ).

2015Ervin, 158 Wn.2d at 752 -53 (citing Green, 355 U.S. 184 ).

2006“Since we have determined the trial court properly instructed the jury that the Defendant had the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, we must look elsewhere for an appropriate standard of review.” Lively, 130 Wn.2d at 17 . ¶11 The Supreme Court looked to other jurisdictions, including Georgia, for guidance as to the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is required to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

2006“Since we have determined the trial court properly instructed the jury that the Defendant had the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, we must look elsewhere for an appropriate standard of review.” Lively, 130 Wn.2d at 17 . ¶11 The Supreme Court looked to other jurisdictions, including Georgia, for guidance as to the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is required to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

2025App. at 119 (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980)).

2025App. at 119 (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980)).

2025App. 117, 119 , 747 P.2d 484 (1987), holding that “a trier of fact properly may rely on circumstantial evidence alone, even if it is also consistent with the hypothesis of innocence” but conveniently leaves out the remainder of that sentence, “so long as the evidence meets the Green standard.” Majority at 8.

2025The Green standard refers to “whether the evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] possessed … with intent to deliver.” Kovac, 50 Wn.

2023Accordingly, Green preserved the issue for appeal. 8 No. 56606-1-II concerning the statement, “or the interests of justice otherwise require.” Generally, when a “‘witness testifies at trial about an event but claims to have no knowledge of a material detail, or no recollection of it, most courts permit a prior statement indicating knowledge of the detail to be used for impeachment.’” State v. Newbern, 95 Wn.

2019In the 1975 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 523 F.2d 1290, 1293 , the court identified three aspects of the information sought (later termed the “Green factors”) relevant in assessing whether a criminal background exclusion is job related for a position and consistent with business necessity:  The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;  The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and  The nature of the job held or sought.

2014We hold also that the Commission applied an improper burden of proof in determining City liability but that this error was harmless. ¶26 Washington adjudicates statutory discrimination claims using the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green framework. 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L.

2014We hold also that the Commission applied an improper burden of proof in determining City liability but that this error was harmless. ¶26 Washington adjudicates statutory discrimination claims using the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green framework. 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L.

2012Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d at 424 .

2012To the contrary, Green is the leading case that must be used to determine whether the restriction of Bigelow’s movement was sufficient to establish abduction by secretion, or whether it was merely the “incidental” restraint occurring in the course of the robbery. ¶42 The majority aligns itself with State v. Butler, 165 Wn.

2012To the contrary, Green is the leading case that must be used to determine whether the restriction of Bigelow’s movement was sufficient to establish abduction by secretion, or whether it was merely the “incidental” restraint occurring in the course of the robbery. ¶42 The majority aligns itself with State v. Butler, 165 Wn.

2006"Since we have determined the trial court properly instructed the jury that the Defendant had the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, we must look elsewhere for an appropriate standard of review." Lively, 130 Wash.2d at 17 , 921 P.2d 1035 . ¶ 11 The Supreme Court looked to other jurisdictions, including Georgia, for guidance as to the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is required to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

2006"Since we have determined the trial court properly instructed the jury that the Defendant had the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, we must look elsewhere for an appropriate standard of review." Lively, 130 Wash.2d at 17 , 921 P.2d 1035 . ¶ 11 The Supreme Court looked to other jurisdictions, including Georgia, for guidance as to the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is required to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

1987State v. Couch, 44 Wn.

1982Commercial Courier Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 13 Wn.