14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 4 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. Trujillogreen2 sentences2023In reaching this conclusion, we stated, The quantum of evidence required for an instruction to be given as an affirmative defense is sufficient evidence “to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the defendant has established the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 19 (quoting State v. Trujillo, 75 Wn. 2023Two years later, Division One disavowed Galisia in Trujillo, holding that in order to be entitled to an entrapment instruction “a defendant must present evidence which would be sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the defendant has established the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.” Trujillo, 75 Wn. | 1 | 8 |
United States v. Richard Scott McLernon Kido Yaqui, Sherri Louise Farrell, Miguel Angel Carranza, and Marco Antonio Valdez-Cotagreen1 sentence2022See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (supporting the “general proposition” that a party requesting an instruction on its theory must be given if such theory is supported by evidence); Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 814 (treating “entrapment as a garden-variety theory of affirmative defense for purposes of delineating what was needed to frame a jury question” (citing United States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 1984))). 15 No. 99452-8 entrapment by a preponderance of the ev | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lee Nationsgreen1 sentence2022See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (supporting the “general proposition” that a party requesting an instruction on its theory must be given if such theory is supported by evidence); Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 814 (treating “entrapment as a garden-variety theory of affirmative defense for purposes of delineating what was needed to frame a jury question” (citing United States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 1984))). 15 No. 99452-8 entrapment by a preponderance of the ev | 1 | 1 |
United States v. M.K. Fadelgreen1 sentence2022See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (supporting the “general proposition” that a party requesting an instruction on its theory must be given if such theory is supported by evidence); Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 814 (treating “entrapment as a garden-variety theory of affirmative defense for purposes of delineating what was needed to frame a jury question” (citing United States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 1984))). 15 No. 99452-8 entrapment by a preponderance of the ev | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Felix Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2022See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (supporting the “general proposition” that a party requesting an instruction on its theory must be given if such theory is supported by evidence); Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 814 (treating “entrapment as a garden-variety theory of affirmative defense for purposes of delineating what was needed to frame a jury question” (citing United States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 1984))). 15 No. 99452-8 entrapment by a preponderance of the ev | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022See Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63 (supporting the “general proposition” that a party requesting an instruction on its theory must be given if such theory is supported by evidence); Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 814 (treating “entrapment as a garden-variety theory of affirmative defense for purposes of delineating what was needed to frame a jury question” (citing United States v. Fadel, 844 F.2d 1425, 1430 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1110-11 (6th Cir. 1984))). 15 No. 99452-8 entrapment by a preponderance of the ev | 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. Ross
green
2 sentences2023App. 913, 917 , 883 P.2d 329 (1994)). 2021In Trujillo, Division I rejected the typical “some” or “substantial” evidence standard for obtaining instruction on an affirmative defense, instead holding that “to entitle a defendant to an entrapment instruction . . . a defendant must present evidence which would be sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the defendant has established the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 917 . | 4 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Galisia
green
2 sentences2020App. at 917 (declaring the contrary holding in Galisia, 63 Wn. 1994We recognize that in State v. Galisia, 63 Wn. | 2 | 1994–2020 |
State v. Camara
red
2 sentences2009If you find the defendant has established the defense of consent, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. ¶11 Based on State v. Camara, Buzzell urges this court to recognize consent as an affirmative defense to a charge of indecent liberties. 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989). 2009If you find the defendant has established the defense of consent, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. ¶11 Based on State v. Camara, Buzzell urges this court to recognize consent as an affirmative defense to a charge of indecent liberties. 113 Wn.2d 631 , 781 P.2d 483 (1989). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge]. 11 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 19.03 (5th ed. 2021). 14 No. 84576-4-I/15 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694-95 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2024If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge]. 11 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 19.03 (5th ed. 2021). 14 No. 84576-4-I/15 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694-95 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.