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 2012–2017 0 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. Guzman Nuñezgreen2 sentences2015See, In re Brockie, 178 Wn.2d at 539 (explaining that, on direct appeal in an uncharged alternative means case, the State has the opportunity to show harmlessness). 3We also reject Brown's challenge, in his statement of additional grounds, to the special verdict forms on the ground that they applied the nonunanimity rule overruled in State v. Nunez, 174 Wn. 2d 707, 709 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). 2015Instead, he contends that trial court was required to give a nonunanimity instruction as required by State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 146-47 , 234 P.3d 195 (2010), overruled by State v. Guzman Nunez, 174 Wn.2d 707 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). | 3 | 9 |
State v. Bashawred2 sentences2015Instead, he contends that trial court was required to give a nonunanimity instruction as required by State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 146-47 , 234 P.3d 195 (2010), overruled by State v. Guzman Nunez, 174 Wn.2d 707 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). 2015Prior to the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Guzman Nunez, the court in Bashaw recognized the nonunanimity rule developed in State v. Goldberg, 149 27 No. 29033-6-III State v. Stafford Wn.2d 888, 72 P.3d 1083 (2003), that "a unanimous jury decision is not required to find that the State has failed to prove the presence of a special fmding increasing the defendant's maximum allowable sentence." Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d at 146 . | 1 | 5 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Brockiegreen1 sentence2015See, In re Brockie, 178 Wn.2d at 539 (explaining that, on direct appeal in an uncharged alternative means case, the State has the opportunity to show harmlessness). 3We also reject Brown's challenge, in his statement of additional grounds, to the special verdict forms on the ground that they applied the nonunanimity rule overruled in State v. Nunez, 174 Wn. 2d 707, 709 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382 , 119 S. Ct. 2090 , 144 L. 2012See Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382 , 119 S. Ct. 2090 , 144 L. | 1 | 1 |
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.green2 sentences2012We require “ ‘a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned.’ ” Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 147 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004) (quoting In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649, 653 , 466 P.2d 508 (1970)). ¶12 We now conclude that Goldberg’s nonunanimity rule is incorrect for two reasons: (1) the authority on which it relies does not support it and (2) it conflicts with our precedent. ¶13 First, Goldberg relies on CrR 6.16(a)(3) to support the proposition that the trial court cannot instruct the jury to continue deliberations when it 2012See Riehl, 152 Wn.2d at 147 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bashawred2 sentences2015Instead, he contends that trial court was required to give a nonunanimity instruction as required by State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 146-47 , 234 P.3d 195 (2010), overruled by State v. Guzman Nunez, 174 Wn.2d 707 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). 2015Prior to the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Guzman Nunez, the court in Bashaw recognized the nonunanimity rule developed in State v. Goldberg, 149 27 No. 29033-6-III State v. Stafford Wn.2d 888, 72 P.3d 1083 (2003), that "a unanimous jury decision is not required to find that the State has failed to prove the presence of a special fmding increasing the defendant's maximum allowable sentence." Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d at 146 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Bashawred2 sentences2015Instead, he contends that trial court was required to give a nonunanimity instruction as required by State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 146-47 , 234 P.3d 195 (2010), overruled by State v. Guzman Nunez, 174 Wn.2d 707 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012). 2013State v. Goldberg. 149 Wn.2d 888 , 72 P.3d 1083 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Nunez. 174Wn.2d at 718-19; State v. Bashaw. 169 Wn.2d 133 , 234 P.3d 195 (2010), overruled on other grounds by Nunez, 174 Wn.2d at 718-19 . 80 See, e.g., Goldberg. 149 Wn.2d at 891-93 . 81 Bashaw. 169 Wn.2d at 147. 82 Id. at 147-48. 18 No. 67413-7-1/19 harmless.83 We therefore vacate the sentence enhancements. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Goldberg
red
2 sentences2015Prior to the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Guzman Nunez, the court in Bashaw recognized the nonunanimity rule developed in State v. Goldberg, 149 27 No. 29033-6-III State v. Stafford Wn.2d 888, 72 P.3d 1083 (2003), that "a unanimous jury decision is not required to find that the State has failed to prove the presence of a special fmding increasing the defendant's maximum allowable sentence." Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d at 146 . 2013He relies in each case on the nonunanimity rule for such verdicts articulated in State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133 ,234 PJd 195 (2010) and State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888 , 72 P.3d 1083 (2003). | 6 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Goldberg
red
2 sentences2013He relies in each case on the nonunanimity rule for such verdicts articulated in State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133 ,234 PJd 195 (2010) and State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888 , 72 P.3d 1083 (2003). 2013In Guzman Nunez, the Supreme Court overruled the nonunanimity rule for aggravating circumstances it had expressed in Bashaw and, before that, in State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888 , 72 P.3d 1083 (2003). | 5 | 2012–2013 |
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012We require “ ‘a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned.’ ” Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 147 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004) (quoting In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649, 653 , 466 P.2d 508 (1970)). ¶12 We now conclude that Goldberg’s nonunanimity rule is incorrect for two reasons: (1) the authority on which it relies does not support it and (2) it conflicts with our precedent. ¶13 First, Goldberg relies on CrR 6.16(a)(3) to support the proposition that the trial court cannot instruct the jury to continue deliberations when it | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Brett
green
2 sentences2012In State v. Brett, we approved jury instructions that required unanimity to reject an aggravating factor for aggravated first degree murder. 126 Wn.2d 136, 173-74 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995). 2012In State v. Brett, we approved jury instructions that required unanimity to reject an aggravating factor for aggravated first degree murder. 126 Wn.2d 136, 173-74 , 892 P.2d 29 (1995). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Stranger Creek
green
2 sentences2012We require “ ‘a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned.’ ” Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 147 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004) (quoting In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649, 653 , 466 P.2d 508 (1970)). ¶12 We now conclude that Goldberg’s nonunanimity rule is incorrect for two reasons: (1) the authority on which it relies does not support it and (2) it conflicts with our precedent. ¶13 First, Goldberg relies on CrR 6.16(a)(3) to support the proposition that the trial court cannot instruct the jury to continue deliberations when it 2012We require “ ‘a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned.’ ” Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 147 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004) (quoting In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649, 653 , 466 P.2d 508 (1970)). ¶12 We now conclude that Goldberg’s nonunanimity rule is incorrect for two reasons: (1) the authority on which it relies does not support it and (2) it conflicts with our precedent. ¶13 First, Goldberg relies on CrR 6.16(a)(3) to support the proposition that the trial court cannot instruct the jury to continue deliberations when it | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ammons
green
1 sentence2012Because the legislature has authority to determine sentences, see Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at 179-80 , the nonunanimity rule cannot apply to aggravating circumstances found in the SRA. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2012State v. Ryan, 160 Wn. | 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.