12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 2 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. Powellgreen2 sentences2012As the State correctly points out, the statement quoted in Athan was in the context of an analysis of the applicability of the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and did not consider the issue under ER 404(b). 160 Wn.2d at 382-83 . ¶27 Powell considered the admission of ER 404(b) evidence in a spousal murder case. 126 Wn.2d at 259 . 2012There, *157 our Supreme Court stated, “[Mjotive goes beyond gain and can demonstrate an impulse, desire, or any other moving power which causes an individual to act ” Powell, 126 Wn.2d at 259 . | 2 | 3 |
Young in HONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2016The drafting attorney's state 27 See Hong v. Children's Mem'l Hosp.. 993 F.2d 1257, 1265 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating that the state of mind exception to Federal evidence rule against the admission of hearsay does not authorize receipt of a statement by one person as proof of another's state of mind). 13 No. 74320-1-1/14 of mind is not at issue. | 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. Parr
green
2 sentences2022State v. Parr, 93 Wn.2d 95, 98-99 , 606 P.2d 263 (1980). 2020App. 160 , 231 P.3d 231 (2010), affd, 176 Wn.2d 58 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012), to support his argument. ~ and Sublett address testimony admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. .~ 93 Wn.2d at 98 ; 156 Wn. | 3 | 2016–2022 |
Per & Melody Westerdal v. Name Intelligence, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021We review a court’s interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo.31 If the court’s interpretation was correct, we review its decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion.32 Hearsay is any out-of-court statement offered in evidence to 29 Bero, 195 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Sublett
green
2 sentences2020App. 160 , 231 P.3d 231 (2010), affd, 176 Wn.2d 58 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012), to support his argument. ~ and Sublett address testimony admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. .~ 93 Wn.2d at 98 ; 156 Wn. 2020App. 160 , 231 P.3d 231 (2010), affd, 176 Wn.2d 58 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012), to support his argument. ~ and Sublett address testimony admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. .~ 93 Wn.2d at 98 ; 156 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sublett
green
1 sentence2020App. 160 , 231 P.3d 231 (2010), affd, 176 Wn.2d 58 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012), to support his argument. ~ and Sublett address testimony admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. .~ 93 Wn.2d at 98 ; 156 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lynn
green
1 sentence2020App. 160 , 231 P.3d 231 (2010), affd, 176 Wn.2d 58 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012), to support his argument. ~ and Sublett address testimony admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. .~ 93 Wn.2d at 98 ; 156 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Athan
green
1 sentence2012As the State correctly points out, the statement quoted in Athan was in the context of an analysis of the applicability of the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and did not consider the issue under ER 404(b). 160 Wn.2d at 382-83 . ¶27 Powell considered the admission of ER 404(b) evidence in a spousal murder case. 126 Wn.2d at 259 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Korum
green
1 sentence2007State v. Korum, 157 Wash.2d 614, 624-25 , 141 P.3d 13 (2006). [3] In a homicide case, the general rule is that statements by the victim, typically expressing fear of, or anxiety about, the defendant, are not admissible under the state of mind exception because the victim's state of mind is deemed irrelevant. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Korum
green
1 sentence2007State v. Korum, 157 Wash.2d 614, 624-25 , 141 P.3d 13 (2006). [3] In a homicide case, the general rule is that statements by the victim, typically expressing fear of, or anxiety about, the defendant, are not admissible under the state of mind exception because the victim's state of mind is deemed irrelevant. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Terrovona
green
2 sentences1995State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632, 642 , 716 P.2d 295 (1986). 1995State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632, 642 , 716 P.2d 295 (1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Mutual Life Insurance v. Hillmon
green
2 sentences1986Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 , 36 L. 1986Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 , 36 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz
green
2 sentences1983In most instances, the familial relationship will strengthen, and not undermine, the guardian's best judgment in exercising the personal rights of the incompetent. [5] The Eichner court rejected hearsay objections, declaring that such statements fell under the state of mind exception. [6] To compare the guardian ad litem's role in other jurisdictions which require routine judicial intervention in the substantive decisionmaking process, see, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728 , 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977); Baron, Assuring "Detached but Passionate Investigation 1983In most instances, the familial relationship will strengthen, and not undermine, the guardian's best judgment in exercising the personal rights of the incompetent. [5] The Eichner court rejected hearsay objections, declaring that such statements fell under the state of mind exception. [6] To compare the guardian ad litem's role in other jurisdictions which require routine judicial intervention in the substantive decisionmaking process, see, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728 , 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977); Baron, Assuring "Detached but Passionate Investigation | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Roland W. Brown
green
1 sentence1980The subject is dealt with at length in many cases gathered in a scholarly opinion by Judge MacKinnon in United States v. *100 Brown, supra. The conclusion of that opinion is stated at pages 773-74: The rule then to be distilled from the better reasoned decisions is that a victim's extra-judicial declarations of fear of the defendant are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule with a limiting instruction only if there is a manifest need for such evidence, i. e., if it is relevant to a material issue in the case. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.