defendant to prepare defense in Washington

53 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2025 7 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Vangerpengreen wash · 1995 · cited in 35 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2025 2 sentences 2025The primary purpose of the essential element requirement is “‘to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.’” State v. Pry, 194 Wn.2d 745 , 752, 452 P.3d 536 (2019) (quoting State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995)). 2025The primary purpose of the essential element requirement is “‘to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.’” State v. Pry, 194 Wn.2d 745 , 752, 452 P.3d 536 (2019) (quoting State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995)).	2	35
State v. Kjorsvikgreen wash · 1991 · cited in 14 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019 2 sentences 2015State v. Johnson, 180 Wn.2d 295, 300 , 325 P. 3d 135 ( 2014). "[ A] charging document is constitutionally adequate only if all essential elements of a crime, statutory and nonstatutory, are included in the document so as to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense." State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P. 2d 1177 ( 1995). " Words in a charging document are read as a whole, construed according to common sense, and include facts which are necessarily implied." State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d, 93, 109 , 812 P. 2d 86 ( 1991). 2015State v. Johnson, 180 Wn.2d 295, 300 , 325 P. 3d 135 ( 2014). "[ A] charging document is constitutionally adequate only if all essential elements of a crime, statutory and nonstatutory, are included in the document so as to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense." State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P. 2d 1177 ( 1995). " Words in a charging document are read as a whole, construed according to common sense, and include facts which are necessarily implied." State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d, 93, 109 , 812 P. 2d 86 ( 1991).	2	14
State v. Recuencogreen wash · 2008 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Recuenco, 163 Wash.2d at 440-41 , 180 P.3d 1276 ("to ensure due process, the notice of the charge on which a defendant will be tried must be logically given at some point prior to the opening statements of the trial"); State v. McCarty, 140 Wash.2d 420, 427 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000) (holding that the notice of a charge must be provided prior to trial); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wash.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995) (holding that all essential elements of a crime must be in the charging document "so as to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to 2009See, e.g., Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d at 440-41 (“to ensure due process, the notice of the charge on which a defendant will be tried must be logically given at some point prior to the opening statements of the trial”); State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 427 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000) (holding that the notice of a charge must be provided prior to trial); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995) (holding that all essential elements of a crime must be in the charging document “so as to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense”).	2	2
State v. McCartygreen wash · 2000 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016 2 sentences 2016When, as here, the information is challenged for the first time on appeal, the charging document will be construed “quite liberally.” State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 156 , 822 P.2d 775 (1992); see also State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 435 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶8 The primary purpose of the essential element rule is “to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 . 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)).	1	5
State v. McCartygreen wash · 2000 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016 2 sentences 2016When, as here, the information is challenged for the first time on appeal, the charging document will be construed “quite liberally.” State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 156 , 822 P.2d 775 (1992); see also State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 435 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶8 The primary purpose of the essential element rule is “to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 . 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)).	1	5
State v. Recuencogreen wash · 2008 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See, e.g., Recuenco, 163 Wash.2d at 440-41 , 180 P.3d 1276 ("to ensure due process, the notice of the charge on which a defendant will be tried must be logically given at some point prior to the opening statements of the trial"); State v. McCarty, 140 Wash.2d 420, 427 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000) (holding that the notice of a charge must be provided prior to trial); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wash.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995) (holding that all essential elements of a crime must be in the charging document "so as to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (19)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Johnson green wash · 2014 2 sentences 2019"This essential elements rule exists 'to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.'" Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 (quoting Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ). 2019"This essential elements rule exists `to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.'" Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 (quoting Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ).	5	2015–2019
State v. Zillyette green wash · 2013 2 sentences 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)). 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)).	4	2014–2024
State v. Nonog green wash · 2010 2 sentences 2019"If the State fails to allege every essential element, then the information is insufficient and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice." Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 -01 (citing State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 , 226 n.3, 237 P.3d 250 (2010)). 2019"If the State fails to allege every essential element, then the information is insufficient and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice." Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 -01 (citing State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 , 226 n.3, 237 P.3d 250 (2010)).	4	2016–2019
State v. Nonog green wash · 2010 2 sentences 2019"If the State fails to allege every essential element, then the information is insufficient and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice." Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 -01 (citing State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 , 226 n.3, 237 P.3d 250 (2010)). 2019"If the State fails to allege every essential element, then the information is insufficient and the charge must be dismissed without prejudice." Johnson, 180 Wn.2d at 300 -01 (citing State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 , 226 n.3, 237 P.3d 250 (2010)).	4	2016–2019
State v. Ward green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2015The purpose ofthe essential element rule is to "apprise the accused ofthe charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense." Vangerpen. 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCartv, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). " 'An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.'" State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (Quoting State v. Ward. 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)). 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)).	3	2014–2015
State v. Ward green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2015The purpose ofthe essential element rule is to "apprise the accused ofthe charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense." Vangerpen. 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCartv, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). " 'An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.'" State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (Quoting State v. Ward. 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)). 2015The purpose of the essential element rule is to “apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 ; State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 424-25 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶48 “ ‘An essential element is one whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged.’ ” State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 811 , 64 P.3d 640 (2003)).	3	2014–2015
State v. Taylor green wash · 2000 2 sentences 2020State v. Taylor, 140 Wn.2d 229, 235 , 996 P.2d 571 (2000); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995). 2020State v. Taylor, 140 Wn.2d 229, 235 , 996 P.2d 571 (2000); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995).	2	2020–2020
State v. Taylor green wash · 2000 2 sentences 2020State v. Taylor, 140 Wn.2d 229, 235 , 996 P.2d 571 (2000); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995). 2020State v. Taylor, 140 Wn.2d 229, 235 , 996 P.2d 571 (2000); State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995).	2	2020–2020
State v. Leach green wash · 1989 2 sentences 2016A secondary purpose for the essential element rule is to bar "'any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."' State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220,226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010) (quoting State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679, 688 , 782 P.2d 552 (1989)). 2016A secondary purpose for the essential element rule is to bar "'any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."' State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220,226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010) (quoting State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679, 688 , 782 P.2d 552 (1989)).	2	2016–2016
State v. Yates green wash · 2007 2 sentences 2008And former RCW 9.94A.537 allows the State to seek an exceptional sentence “[a]t any time prior to trial or entry of the guilty plea” and allows the State to supplement the information as additional facts become known, putting the accused on notice that the State intends to prove additional facts supporting an exceptional sentence. ¶16 Our state and federal constitutions require only that a criminal defendant be provided notice of the charges sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. 8 See State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 757-60 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007). 2008And former RCW 9.94A.537 allows the State to seek an exceptional sentence "[a]t any time prior to trial or entry of the guilty plea" and allows the State to supplement the information as additional facts become known, putting the accused on notice that the State intends to prove additional facts supporting an exceptional sentence. ¶ 16 Our state and federal constitutions require only that a criminal defendant be provided notice of the charges sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. [8] See State v. Yates, 161 Wash.2d 714, 757-60 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007).	2	2008–2008
State v. Yates green wash · 2007 2 sentences 2008And former RCW 9.94A.537 allows the State to seek an exceptional sentence “[a]t any time prior to trial or entry of the guilty plea” and allows the State to supplement the information as additional facts become known, putting the accused on notice that the State intends to prove additional facts supporting an exceptional sentence. ¶16 Our state and federal constitutions require only that a criminal defendant be provided notice of the charges sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. 8 See State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 757-60 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007). 2008And former RCW 9.94A.537 allows the State to seek an exceptional sentence "[a]t any time prior to trial or entry of the guilty plea" and allows the State to supplement the information as additional facts become known, putting the accused on notice that the State intends to prove additional facts supporting an exceptional sentence. ¶ 16 Our state and federal constitutions require only that a criminal defendant be provided notice of the charges sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. [8] See State v. Yates, 161 Wash.2d 714, 757-60 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007).	2	2008–2008
State v. Tresenriter green washctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2005State v. Tresenriter, 101 Wn. 2005State v. Tresenriter, 101 Wash.App. 486, 491 , 4 P.3d 145 (2000) (quoting State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93, 97 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)).	2	2005–2005
State v. Royse green wash · 1965 2 sentences 2002Id. at 557 , 403 P.2d 838 . 2002Id. at 557 .	2	2002–2002
State v. Pelkey green wash · 1987 2 sentences 2025To that end, a defendant “cannot be tried for an offense not charged.” State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 487 , 745 P.2d 854 (1987). 2025To that end, a defendant “cannot be tried for an offense not charged.” State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 487 , 745 P.2d 854 (1987).	1	2025–2025
State v. Pry green wash · 2019 1 sentence 2025The primary purpose of the essential element requirement is “‘to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.’” State v. Pry, 194 Wn.2d 745 , 752, 452 P.3d 536 (2019) (quoting State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 787 , 888 P.2d 1177 (1995)).	1	2025–2025
State v. Hopper green wash · 1992 2 sentences 2016When, as here, the information is challenged for the first time on appeal, the charging document will be construed “quite liberally.” State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 156 , 822 P.2d 775 (1992); see also State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 435 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶8 The primary purpose of the essential element rule is “to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 . 2016When, as here, the information is challenged for the first time on appeal, the charging document will be construed “quite liberally.” State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 156 , 822 P.2d 775 (1992); see also State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 435 , 998 P.2d 296 (2000). ¶8 The primary purpose of the essential element rule is “to apprise the accused of the charges against him or her and to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.” Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d at 787 .	1	2016–2016
Edmund v. State green md · 2007 1 sentence 2015In that case, the court found that there was no requirement to name the victim if his identity was unknown, but that facts must be supplied "to identify the victim, to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, and to identify the crime." Edmund 921 A.2d at 271 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Tresenriter green washctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2005State v. Tresenriter, 101 Wash.App. 486, 491 , 4 P.3d 145 (2000) (quoting State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93, 97 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)).	1	2005–2005
State v. Sorter neutral kan · 1893 1 sentence 1896If the court shall be convinced that the county attorney had purposely failed to indorse on the information the names of the witnesses known to him at the time :of filing the same, to render it difficult for the defendant to prepare his defense, the court may, under such circumstances, within its discretion, refuse to grant the request of the county attorney to indorse on the information the names of the additional witnesses; but in all cases where the request to indorse the names of witnesses upon the information during the trial is made in good faith, and to promote justice, the court has th	1	1896–1896

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (18) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.068 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.021 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.040 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.140 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.537 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.010 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.020 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.041 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025 (5)

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

PA 70 (1900–2026) TX 62 (1973–2025) IL 57 (1953–2024) WA 53 (1896–2025) MO 42 (1912–2025) NC 39 (1958–2026) NY 33 (1909–2025) GA 28 (1925–2024) LA 18 (1939–2025) CO 16 (1979–2020) CA 12 (1887–2025) CT 11 (1962–2017) WY 10 (1926–2022) TN 9 (1985–2019) OR 9 (1963–2017) MS 9 (1997–2008) AZ 7 (1969–2022) ID 6 (1980–1996) ND 6 (1995–2021) NH 6 (1984–2011) FL 6 (1937–2009) KS 5 (1886–2018) UT 5 (1948–2024) MN 5 (1921–2015) OH 5 (1961–2022) AL 4 (1963–1990) MI 4 (1916–1995) NJ 4 (1959–2026) IN 4 (1980–2020) WI 4 (1988–2022) MT 4 (1965–2023) NM 3 (1966–2021) MD 3 (1983–2013) ME 3 (1984–1990) VA 3 (1961–2002) VT 2 (1999–2020) AR 2 (1884–1931) VI 2 (2013–2015) MA 2 (1991–1992) DE 2 (2024–2024) WV 2 (1992–1999) IA 2 (2001–2016)

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