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 1987–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Q.D.
green
2 sentences2026This presumption, known as “ ‘the infancy defense,’ ” protects “ ‘individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior.’ ” State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 114 , 86 P.3d 132 (2004) (quoting State v. Q.D., 102 Wn.2d 19, 23 , 685 P.2d 557 (1984)). 2026This presumption, known as “ ‘the infancy defense,’ ” protects “ ‘individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior.’ ” State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 114 , 86 P.3d 132 (2004) (quoting State v. Q.D., 102 Wn.2d 19, 23 , 685 P.2d 557 (1984)). | 6 | 1987–2026 |
State v. Ramer
green
2 sentences2026This presumption, known as “ ‘the infancy defense,’ ” protects “ ‘individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior.’ ” State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 114 , 86 P.3d 132 (2004) (quoting State v. Q.D., 102 Wn.2d 19, 23 , 685 P.2d 557 (1984)). 2026This presumption, known as “ ‘the infancy defense,’ ” protects “ ‘individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior.’ ” State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 114 , 86 P.3d 132 (2004) (quoting State v. Q.D., 102 Wn.2d 19, 23 , 685 P.2d 557 (1984)). | 5 | 2016–2026 |
State v. QD
green
2 sentences2004The statute codifies what is known as "the infancy defense." The purpose of the infancy defense is "to protect from the criminal justice system those individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior." Q.D., 102 Wash.2d at 23 , 685 P.2d 557 . 2004The statute codifies what is known as “the infancy defense.” The purpose of the infancy defense is “to protect from the criminal justice system those individuals of tender years who are less capable than adults of appreciating the wrongfulness of their behavior.” Q.D., 102 Wn.2d at 23 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. J.P.S.
green
2 sentences2026RCW 9A.04.050; State v. J.P.S., 135 Wn.2d 34, 37-38 , 954 P.2d 894 (1998). 7 The juvenile court determines capacity through a fact-specific inquiry that is “in reference to the specific act charged.” Ramer, 151 Wn.2d at 114 . 2026RCW 9A.04.050; State v. J.P.S., 135 Wn.2d 34, 37-38 , 954 P.2d 894 (1998). 7 The juvenile court determines capacity through a fact-specific inquiry that is “in reference to the specific act charged.” Ramer, 151 Wn.2d at 114 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.