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.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2022 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. Torresgreen2 sentences1984See also Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515, 517 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 955 , 58 L.Ed.2d 347 , 99 S.Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). 1984Ed. 2d 347 , 99 S. Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
Harrison Berrier v. Charles E. Egeler, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jacksongreen1 sentence1984See also Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515, 517 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 955 , 58 L.Ed.2d 347 , 99 S.Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
Statewide Contractors, Inc. v. Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Bankergreen2 sentences1984See also Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515, 517 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 955 , 58 L.Ed.2d 347 , 99 S.Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). 1984Ed. 2d 347 , 99 S. Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Licklidergreen1 sentence1984See also Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515, 517 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 955 , 58 L.Ed.2d 347 , 99 S.Ct. 354 (1978) (failure to allocate burden to the State "implies that the defendant must prove his claim of self-defense"); State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980) (failure to instruct "that the defendant need not prove his defense" is reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. White
green
2 sentences2018White, 137 Wn. 2014State v. White, 137 Wn. | 2 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Jeffrey
green
2 sentences2007Jeffrey, 77 Wash.App. at 225 , 889 P.2d 956 ; WPIC 18.02. ¶ 8 Comparing the two defenses, the statutory defense is a specific iteration of the principles underlying the necessity defense. 2007Jeffrey, 77 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Sutherby
green
1 sentence2022App. 2d 245 , 257, 477 P.3d 61 (2020) (citing State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009)). 7 No. 83418-5-I/8 A defendant bears the burden of proving defense counsel was ineffective. 18 The defendant must prove defense counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced the outcome of trial.19 Failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice ends the analysis.20 After the State presented its case-in-chief, defense counsel asked for a hearing without the State present in order to discuss an issue involving RPC 3.3(a)(4), which prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly . . . offer[ing] ev | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Sutherby
green
1 sentence2022App. 2d 245 , 257, 477 P.3d 61 (2020) (citing State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009)). 7 No. 83418-5-I/8 A defendant bears the burden of proving defense counsel was ineffective. 18 The defendant must prove defense counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced the outcome of trial.19 Failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice ends the analysis.20 After the State presented its case-in-chief, defense counsel asked for a hearing without the State present in order to discuss an issue involving RPC 3.3(a)(4), which prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly . . . offer[ing] ev | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Deer
green
2 sentences2014State v. Deer, 175 Wn.2d 725, 736 , 287 P.3d 539 (2012). ¶43 The court instructed the jury that involuntary intoxication is a defense to assault if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Stacy was given drugs by force or fraud and the drugs prevented him from forming the intent to assault. 2014State v. Deer, 175 Wn.2d 725, 736 , 287 P.3d 539 (2012). ¶43 The court instructed the jury that involuntary intoxication is a defense to assault if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Stacy was given drugs by force or fraud and the drugs prevented him from forming the intent to assault. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence1984App. 572 , 643 P.2d 916 (1982), in which this court held that, because the intoxication defense negates the element of intent required for third degree assault, it was a violation of due process to instruct the jury that the defendant must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.