12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d216, 230, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality opinion) (stating the sufficiency of evidence standard). 2017See, e.g., State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d216, 230, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality opinion) (stating the sufficiency of evidence standard). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Marklegreen2 sentences2012While the circumstances of Markle would appear to have supported a sufficiency of evidence challenge, none was made. 118 Wn.2d at 441 (“[W]e are reversing Mr. Markle’s conviction based upon an improper midtrial amendment to the information. 2012While the circumstances of Markle would appear to have supported a sufficiency of evidence challenge, none was made. 118 Wn.2d at 441 (“[W]e are reversing Mr. Markle’s conviction based upon an improper midtrial amendment to the information. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2004The appropriate standard for reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim is “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L. 2004The appropriate standard for reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim is “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L. | 3 | 2004–2025 |
Tonkovich v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 103 ( quoting Tonkovich v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 2016Id. at 103 ( quoting Tonkovich v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). | 2 | 2012–2016 |
State v. Berg
green
2 sentences2025The purpose of a sufficiency of evidence inquiry is to “‘ensure that the trial court fact finder “rationally appl[ied]” the constitutional standard required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution], which allows for conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Berg, 181 Wn.2d 857, 867 , 337 P.3d 310 (2014) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn. 2025The purpose of a sufficiency of evidence inquiry is to “‘ensure that the trial court fact finder “rationally appl[ied]” the constitutional standard required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution], which allows for conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Berg, 181 Wn.2d 857, 867 , 337 P.3d 310 (2014) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rattana Keo Phuong
green
2 sentences2025App. 494, 502 , 299 P.3d 37 (2013) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 317-18 )). 2025The purpose of a sufficiency of evidence inquiry is to “‘ensure that the trial court fact finder “rationally appl[ied]” the constitutional standard required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution], which allows for conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Berg, 181 Wn.2d 857, 867 , 337 P.3d 310 (2014) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S. Ct. 1239 , 90 L. 2024Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S. Ct. 1239 , 90 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Treat
green
1 sentence2024A sufficiency-of-evidence challenge “admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Id. 3 No. 39858-7-III State v. Clark Felony violation of a no-contact order: proof required A defendant violates a no-contact order where he willfully engages in contact with another that he knows is prohibited by a valid order. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2017State v. Jackson, 145 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Witherspoon
green
2 sentences2016State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875, 883 , 329 P.3d 888 (2014); State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). 2016State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875, 883 , 329 P.3d 888 (2014); State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Salinas
green
2 sentences2016State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875, 883 , 329 P.3d 888 (2014); State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). 2016State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875, 883 , 329 P.3d 888 (2014); State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2012One of the most important characteristics is that it is “not a sufficiency of evidence test.” Id. (relying on Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 ). 2012One of the most important characteristics is that it is "not a sufficiency of evidence test." Id. (relying on Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Teal
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). ¶28 The court qualified its holding in Hickman in State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333, 337 , 96 P.3d 974 (2004). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Teal
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). ¶28 The court qualified its holding in Hickman in State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333, 337 , 96 P.3d 974 (2004). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hickman
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). ¶28 The court qualified its holding in Hickman in State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333, 337 , 96 P.3d 974 (2004). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Pelkey
green
2 sentences2012In Pelkey, the Supreme Court explicitly did not reach a sufficiency of evidence challenge based on the original charge, noting that “[t]he parties do not raise this question in this appeal, and we express no opinion on the merits of the issue.” 109 Wn.2d at 486 n.2. 2012In Pelkey, the Supreme Court explicitly did not reach a sufficiency of evidence challenge based on the original charge, noting that “[t]he parties do not raise this question in this appeal, and we express no opinion on the merits of the issue.” 109 Wn.2d at 486 n.2. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2012One of the most important characteristics is that it is "not a sufficiency of evidence test." Id. (relying on Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ). 2012One of the most important characteristics is that it is "not a sufficiency of evidence test." Id. (relying on Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.