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.
12 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kitchen
green
2 sentences2022Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d at 893 . “‘The error stems from the possibility that some jurors may have relied on one act or incident and some [jurors a different act], resulting in a lack of unanimity on all of the elements necessary for a valid conviction.’” Id. (quoting Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411 ). 2015I, § 21. 4 State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403, 411 , 756 P.2d 105 (1988). 5 Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411 . 6 Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 405 -06 (citing State v. Loehner, 42 Wn. | 6 | 2008–2022 |
State v. Bobenhouse
green
2 sentences2022Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d at 893 . “‘The error stems from the possibility that some jurors may have relied on one act or incident and some [jurors a different act], resulting in a lack of unanimity on all of the elements necessary for a valid conviction.’” Id. (quoting Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411 ). 2022Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d at 893 . “‘The error stems from the possibility that some jurors may have relied on one act or incident and some [jurors a different act], resulting in a lack of unanimity on all of the elements necessary for a valid conviction.’” Id. (quoting Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411 ). | 3 | 2013–2022 |
State v. Bobenhouse
green
2 sentences2016State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881, 893 , 214 P.3d 907 (2009). 2013State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881, 893 , 214 P.3d 907 (2009). | 2 | 2013–2016 |
State v. Fiallo-Lopez
green
2 sentences2009RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Fiallo-Lopez, 78 Wn. 2009RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Fiallo-Lopez, 78 Wash.App. 717, 725 , 899 P.2d 1294 (1995). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2009Coleman, 159 Wash.2d at 512 , 150 P.3d 1126 (citing Kitchen, 110 Wash.2d at 411-12 , 756 P.2d 105 ). 2009Coleman, 159 Wn.2d at 512 (citing Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411-12 ). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Camarillo
green
2 sentences2008Camarillo, 115 Wash.2d at 72 , 794 P.2d 850 ; Kitchen, 110 Wash.2d at 413-14 , 756 P.2d 105 ; Allen, 57 Wash.App. at 139, 787 P.2d 566 . 2008Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d at 72 ; Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 413-14 ; Allen, 57 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Boyd
green
1 sentence2020RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Hanson, 59 ii No. 78593-1-1/ 12 App. 910 , 922, 155 P.3d 188 (2007). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hanson
green
1 sentence2020RAP 2.5(a)(3): State v. Hanson, 59 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. O'Hara
green
1 sentence2016State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (internal 7 No. 47489-1-II quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Gordon
green
2 sentences2016State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (internal 7 No. 47489-1-II quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). 2016State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (internal 7 No. 47489-1-II quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. O'HARA
green
1 sentence2016State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676 , 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (internal 7 No. 47489-1-II quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Loehner
green
1 sentence2015I, § 21. 4 State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403, 411 , 756 P.2d 105 (1988). 5 Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 411 . 6 Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d at 405 -06 (citing State v. Loehner, 42 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2015We review the adequacy of jury instructions de novo.2 The state constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a unanimous jury verdict.3 When the State alleges multiple criminal acts but charges the defendant with only one crime, either the State must choose the act it relies on for conviction or the court must instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that the State proved a single act beyond a reasonable doubt.4 If neither of these alternatives occurs, some jurors may rely on one criminal act while other jurors rely on another, meaning the jury would not be unanimous on all of the ele | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015We review the adequacy of jury instructions de novo.2 The state constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a unanimous jury verdict.3 When the State alleges multiple criminal acts but charges the defendant with only one crime, either the State must choose the act it relies on for conviction or the court must instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that the State proved a single act beyond a reasonable doubt.4 If neither of these alternatives occurs, some jurors may rely on one criminal act while other jurors rely on another, meaning the jury would not be unanimous on all of the ele | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015We review the adequacy of jury instructions de novo.2 The state constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a unanimous jury verdict.3 When the State alleges multiple criminal acts but charges the defendant with only one crime, either the State must choose the act it relies on for conviction or the court must instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that the State proved a single act beyond a reasonable doubt.4 If neither of these alternatives occurs, some jurors may rely on one criminal act while other jurors rely on another, meaning the jury would not be unanimous on all of the ele | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Coleman
green
1 sentence2009Coleman, 159 Wash.2d at 512 , 150 P.3d 1126 (citing Kitchen, 110 Wash.2d at 411-12 , 756 P.2d 105 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.