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.
11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2016App. 611, 614 , 128 P.3d 631 (2006); but see State v. Woods, 143 Wn. d 561, 595, 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review t the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary facto s by the trial court). 2016But see State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 595 , 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary factors by the trial court). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2016But see State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 595 , 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary factors by the trial court). 2009See Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 599-601 , 23 P.3d 1046 (statements made 45 minutes after assailant left the crime scene were properly admitted); see also State v. Flett, 40 Wash.App. 277, 287 , 699 P.2d 774 (1985) (statements made seven hours after rape deemed properly admitted upon finding *497 of "continuing stress" between time of rape and statement). ¶ 67 The three requirements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are satisfied. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Flettgreen2 sentences2009App. 277, 287 , 699 P.2d 774 (1985) (statements made seven hours after rape deemed properly admitted upon finding of “continuing stress” between time of rape and statement). ¶67 The three requirements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are satisfied. 2009See Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 599-601 , 23 P.3d 1046 (statements made 45 minutes after assailant left the crime scene were properly admitted); see also State v. Flett, 40 Wash.App. 277, 287 , 699 P.2d 774 (1985) (statements made seven hours after rape deemed properly admitted upon finding *497 of "continuing stress" between time of rape and statement). ¶ 67 The three requirements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are satisfied. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2016App. 611, 614 , 128 P.3d 631 (2006); but see State v. Woods, 143 Wn. d 561, 595, 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review t the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary facto s by the trial court). 2016But see State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 595 , 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary factors by the trial court). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2016But see State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 595 , 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary factors by the trial court). 2009See Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 599-601 , 23 P.3d 1046 (statements made 45 minutes after assailant left the crime scene were properly admitted); see also State v. Flett, 40 Wash.App. 277, 287 , 699 P.2d 774 (1985) (statements made seven hours after rape deemed properly admitted upon finding *497 of "continuing stress" between time of rape and statement). ¶ 67 The three requirements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are satisfied. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chapin
green
2 sentences1997State v. Chapin, 118 Wn.2d 681, 686 , 826 P.2d 194 (1992) (citing 6 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 1747, at 195 (James H. 1997State v. Chapin, 118 Wn.2d 681, 686 , 826 P.2d 194 (1992) (citing 6 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 1747, at 195 (James H. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Rodriquez
green
1 sentence2023State v. Rodriquez, 187 Wn. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2016App. 611, 614 , 128 P.3d 631 (2006); but see State v. Woods, 143 Wn. d 561, 595, 23 P.3d 1046 (2001) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review t the excited utterance hearsay exception, which requires application of evidentiary facto s by the trial court). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lui
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 469 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shipley v. United States
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.