reasonable belief standard (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

reasonable belief standard in Washington

16 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
In re the Personal Restraint of Hubertgreen
washctapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021
2 sentences

2021And in In re Personal Restraint of Hubert, Division One held that defense counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel failed to request a reasonable belief instruction because he did not know the affirmative defense existed, so the failure could not have been a strategic decision. 138 Wn.

2019App. at 265-66 . 4 In contrast, counsel in Hubert stated he did not request a reasonable belief instruction because “he ‘was not familiar’ with the statutory defense until [the defendant’s] appellate counsel brought it to his attention.” 138 Wn.

13
State v. Coristinegreen
wash · 2013 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021
2 sentences

2021Id. at 381 (discussing the confusion about burdens of proof that an affirmative defense could cause and explaining that the reasonable belief instruction interfered with Coristine’s straightforward presentation of the defense that the victim was not incapacitated).

2019Here, counsel’s choice to not request a reasonable belief instruction, and instead argue that the State failed to meet its burden to prove SC was physically helpless or mentally incapacitated, was objectively reasonable.3 See State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370, 378-79 , 300 P.3d 400 (2013) (recognizing that it can be a valid tactical decision to not assert an affirmative defense because defenses carry with them the burden of proof).

12
State v. Corderogreen
washctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See also State v. Cordero, 170 Wn.

11
State v. Baccinogreen
delsuperct · 1971 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985See, e.g., State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 (Del.

1985See, e.g., State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 (Del.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

CaseCitedYears
McLeay v. Bergan Mercy Health Systems Corp. neutral
neb · 2006
2 sentences

2012Corp., 271 Neb. 602, 612 , 714 N.W.2d 7 (2006). ¶ 60 At the time PQAC recommended the precautionary suspension of Dr. Smigaj's clinical privileges, PQAC relied primarily on the JA, LH, and WC cases. ¶ 61 Applying the reasonable belief standard, we conclude that Dr. Smigaj has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Memorial's professional review action was not made in the reasonable belief that it was in furtherance of quality health care.

2012Corp., 271 Neb. 602, 612 , 714 N.W.2d 7 (2006). ¶ 60 At the time PQAC recommended the precautionary suspension of Dr. Smigaj's clinical privileges, PQAC relied primarily on the JA, LH, and WC cases. ¶ 61 Applying the reasonable belief standard, we conclude that Dr. Smigaj has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Memorial's professional review action was not made in the reasonable belief that it was in furtherance of quality health care.

22012–2012
Arizona v. Gant green
scotus · 2009
2 sentences

2010Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1719 . ¶22 While the Court did not elaborate on the reasonable belief standard, the opinion makes clear it requires less than probable cause.

2010Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 . ¶ 22 While the Court did not elaborate on the reasonable belief standard, the opinion makes clear it requires less than probable cause.

22010–2010
Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc. green
wash · 1996
2 sentences

2001Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) is also contrary to the majority's pronouncement of a reasonable belief standard.

2000Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) is also contrary to the majority’s pronouncement of a reasonable belief standard.

22000–2001
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. green
wash · 1996
2 sentences

2001Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) is also contrary to the majority's pronouncement of a reasonable belief standard.

2000Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 , 913 P.2d 377 (1996) is also contrary to the majority’s pronouncement of a reasonable belief standard.

22000–2001
Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health System Corp. green
caed · 1992
2 sentences

2000Morgan points us to the Fobbs court, which stated that “it is clear that the presumption provided in § 11112(a) refers only to the reasonable belief standard of § 11112(a)(1), not to the reasonable belief standard of § 11112(a)(4).” 789 F. Supp. at 1069 .

2000Morgan points us to the Fobbs court, which stated that "it is clear that the presumption provided in § 11112(a) refers only to the reasonable belief standard of § 11112(a)(1), not to the reasonable belief standard of § 11112(a)(4)." 789 F.Supp. at 1069 .

22000–2000
State v. Lozano neutral
washctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2025RCW 9A.44.030(1); Lozano, 189 Wn.

12025–2025
State v. Ponce green
washctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2021State v. Ayala Ponce, 166 Wn.

12021–2021
In Re Hubert green
washctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2021App. 924, 929 , 158 P.3d 1282 (2007).

12021–2021
State v. W.R. green
wash · 2014
2 sentences

2015There is nothing in the record to suggest that Lozano was forced to present the reasonable belief defense or that the instruction was given over his objection. rd 45242 -1 - II The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to convict the defendant of the charged crime. 5 State v. W.R., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 761- 62, 336 P. 3d 1134 ( 2014). " A corollary rule is that the State cannot require the defendant to disprove any fact that constitutes the crime charged." W.R., i81 Wn.2d at 762.

2015There is nothing in the record to suggest that Lozano was forced to present the reasonable belief defense or that the instruction was given over his objection. rd 45242 -1 - II The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to convict the defendant of the charged crime. 5 State v. W.R., 181 Wn.2d 757 , 761- 62, 336 P. 3d 1134 ( 2014). " A corollary rule is that the State cannot require the defendant to disprove any fact that constitutes the crime charged." W.R., i81 Wn.2d at 762.

12015–2015
State v. Ortega green
wash · 2013
2 sentences

2013State v. Ortega. 177 Wn.2d 116, 124 , 297 P.3d 57 (2013).

2013State v. Ortega. 177 Wn.2d 116, 124 , 297 P.3d 57 (2013).

12013–2013
Terry v. Ohio green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

2010Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.

2010Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.

12010–2010
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

1985When law enforcement officials search, probable cause "is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 (1967). [2] The reasonable belief standard was adopted to permit searches of students by school officials on a lower quantum of evidence than that required for a search by law enforcement officers.

1985When law enforcement officials search, probable cause "is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 (1967). [2] The reasonable belief standard was adopted to permit searches of students by school officials on a lower quantum of evidence than that required for a search by law enforcement officers.

11985–1985
State v. McKinnon green
wash · 1977
2 sentences

1985State v. McKinnon, 88 Wn.2d 75 , 558 P.2d 781 (1977); 2 W.

1985State v. McKinnon, 88 Wn.2d 75 , 558 P.2d 781 (1977); 2 W.

11985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 42u.s.c.11112 (4) USC § 42u.s.c.11113 (4) USC § 42u.s.c.11151 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.020 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.030 (4) USC § 42u.s.c.11101-11152 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.050 (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

IL 35 (1970–2020) CA 19 (1981–2025) WA 16 (1985–2025) PA 15 (1982–2025) NY 11 (1966–2025) MO 10 (1981–2024) RI 9 (1976–2017) OH 8 (1993–2026) OK 7 (1987–2020) IN 7 (1980–2015) GA 6 (1981–2025) FL 6 (1967–2026) CO 6 (1989–2025) TX 6 (2000–2024) NJ 6 (1996–2026) ID 5 (1987–2019) MD 3 (1999–2020) NV 3 (2015–2015) AZ 3 (1976–2018) CT 3 (1997–2023) DC 3 (1957–2021) AK 2 (1979–1992) NM 2 (1986–1995) WI 2 (2014–2015) NE 2 (1992–2009) WV 2 (1985–1999) UT 2 (2020–2020) KS 2 (2006–2018) TN 2 (2001–2007)

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