jury on the affirmative defense (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

jury on the affirmative defense in Washington

10 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Harvill green
wash · 2010
2 sentences

2020Harvill, 169 Wn.2d at 256 .

2020Harvill, 169 Wn.2d at 256 .

22020–2020
State v. Lynch green
wash · 2013
2 sentences

2016Wiebe attempts to analogize this case to Lynch, in which the Supreme Court held that the trial court violated Lynch’s right to control his defense when the trial court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of consent to a charge of rape over Lynch’s objection. 178 Wn.2d at 493 .

2016Wiebe attempts to analogize this case to Lynch , in which the Supreme Court held that the trial court violated Lynch’s right to control his defense when the trial court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of consent to a charge of rape over Lynch’s objection. 178 Wn.2d at 493 .

22016–2016
State v. Arbogast green
wash · 2022
1 sentence

2026Our Supreme Court has held “that to obtain an entrapment instruction, defendants must make a prima facie showing that (1) the crime originated in the mind of the police or an informant and (2) the defendant is induced to commit a crime that [they were] not predisposed to commit.” State v. Arbogast, 199 Wn.2d 356 , 360, 506 P.3d 1238 (2022) (citing RCW 9A.16.070(1)).

12026–2026
State v. Fisher green
wash · 2016
2 sentences

2018The court used VVPiC 19.01, at 291, to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to felony murder in the first degree and felony murder in the second degree WPiC 19.01 is based on the statutory afhrmative defense RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c) and .()50(‘i)(b).4 State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016); WP|C 19.01 cmt. at 292.

2018The court used VVPiC 19.01, at 291, to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to felony murder in the first degree and felony murder in the second degree WPiC 19.01 is based on the statutory afhrmative defense RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c) and .()50(‘i)(b).4 State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 848 , 374 P.3d 1185 (2016); WP|C 19.01 cmt. at 292.

12018–2018
State v. McSorley neutral
washctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2013We reasoned, “Imposing a defense on an unwilling defendant impinges on the independent autonomy the accused must have to defend against charges.” Id. at 377 . ¶13 In this case, the trial court violated Lynch’s Sixth Amendment right to control his defense by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of consent over Lynch’s objections.

12013–2013
State v. Votava green
wash · 2003
1 sentence

2013This court granted discretionary review of the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the affirmative defense. ¶2 Unlike in State v. Votava, 149 Wn.2d 178, 183 , 66 P.3d 1050 (2003), there is no evidence that Mr. Mendoza Godoy directed the car to be moved or moved it.

12013–2013
Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board green
wash · 2013
1 sentence

2013State v. Lynch, 176 Wn.2d 1016 , 298 P.3d 704 (2013). 3 State v. Lynch, No. 87882-0 ISSUES A. Did the trial court violate Lynch's Sixth Amendment right to control his defense by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of consent over Lynch's objections?

12013–2013
State v. Votava green
wash · 2003
1 sentence

2013This court granted discretionary review of the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the affirmative defense. ¶2 Unlike in State v. Votava, 149 Wn.2d 178, 183 , 66 P.3d 1050 (2003), there is no evidence that Mr. Mendoza Godoy directed the car to be moved or moved it.

12013–2013
State v. Sang Anh Chuong green
washctapp · 1997
1 sentence

2004Chuong, 1997 WL 596597 , at *6, 1997 Wash. App. LEXIS 2204 .

12004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.070 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 59 (1892–2026) OH 21 (1991–2026) CO 16 (1991–2026) CT 12 (1980–2019) IL 10 (1981–2026) WA 10 (2004–2026) IN 5 (1999–2017) UT 5 (2015–2026) PA 4 (2015–2020) GA 4 (2008–2026) NC 4 (1974–2022) FL 3 (1985–1986) NJ 3 (1999–2016) MO 2 (2012–2015) TN 2 (2007–2016) CA 2 (2000–2016) MT 2 (2012–2019) TX 2 (1979–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check