ability to prepare defense (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

ability to prepare defense in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 4 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Olliviergreen
wash · 2013 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2024Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 827 . “[T]he defendant ordinarily must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense.” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 826 .

2024Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 827 . “[T]he defendant ordinarily must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense.” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 826 .

16

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Recuenco green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

2012Recuenco III, 163 Wn.2d at 435 .

2009Recuenco III, 163 Wn.2d at 435-36 .

32009–2012
State v. Iniguez green
wash · 2009
1 sentence

2023To trigger the balancing test, a defendant must first show that the delay “crossed a line from ordinary to presumptively prejudicial.” Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 283 ; accord Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 826 .

12023–2023
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

2023We consider the conduct of both the prosecution and the defense, and we weigh nonexclusive factors including the “‘[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.’” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 827 (alteration in original) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 ). “[T]he defendant ordinarily must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense.” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 826 .

12023–2023
State v. Shemesh green
washctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2023In State v. Shemesh, this court held that a period of 39 months between filing and trial3 was “not alone so excessive” as to support a finding of prejudicial delay. 187 Wn.

12023–2023
State v. Recuenco green
wash · 2008
1 sentence

2009Recuenco III, 163 Wash.2d at 435-36 , 180 P.3d 1276 .

12009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.533 (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

TN 23 (1994–2025) NY 11 (1976–2025) TX 10 (1995–2015) WA 9 (2009–2025) OR 9 (1987–2021) CA 7 (2009–2026) IL 6 (1984–2026) MO 3 (1996–2025) FL 2 (1990–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check