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.
7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 0 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. Mendezred2 sentences2009See Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 220 . ¶20 The second distinction is that, although Chapman may have relied on the van driver’s resembling a general description of the van’s registered owner, unlike the situation in Lambert , here (1) there was no evidence that distinguished the person Chapman saw driving the van from the registered owner’s description, on which he relied; and (2) because the arrest warrants were for the registered owner of the van that he observed, there were direct connections among the van, the owner’s description, the suspected criminal activity, and the driver. ¶21 We hold, there 2009See Mendez, 137 Wash.2d at 220 , 970 P.2d 722 . ¶ 20 The second distinction is that, although Chapman may have relied on the van driver's resembling a general description of the van's registered owner, unlike the situation in Lambert , here (1) there was no evidence that distinguished the person Chapman saw driving the van from the registered owner's description, on which he relied; and (2) because the arrest warrants were for the registered owner of the van that he observed, there were direct connections among the van, the owner's description, the suspected criminal activity, and the driver. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bartelsgreen1 sentence2017E.g., Bartels, 112 Wn.2d at 890 (explicitly applying Chapman standard to the category of indigent defendants most likely 13 State V. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendezred1 sentence2009See Mendez, 137 Wash.2d at 220 , 970 P.2d 722 . ¶ 20 The second distinction is that, although Chapman may have relied on the van driver's resembling a general description of the van's registered owner, unlike the situation in Lambert , here (1) there was no evidence that distinguished the person Chapman saw driving the van from the registered owner's description, on which he relied; and (2) because the arrest warrants were for the registered owner of the van that he observed, there were direct connections among the van, the owner's description, the suspected criminal activity, and the driver. | 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. Stephens
green
2 sentences1981In a recent case we cited Chapman's rule that a constitutional error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and refused to hold the error harmless because the court was unable to conclude that the error "`in no way affected the final outcome of the case.'" State v. Stephens, 93 Wn.2d 186, 191 , 607 P.2d 304 (1980). 1981In a recent case we cited Chapman's rule that a constitutional error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and refused to hold the error harmless because the court was unable to conclude that the error "`in no way affected the final outcome of the case.'" State v. Stephens, 93 Wn.2d 186, 191 , 607 P.2d 304 (1980). | 2 | 1980–1981 |
State v. Coristine
green
2 sentences2018Coristine, 177 Wash.2d at 383 , 300 P.3d 400 . 2018Coristine, 177 Wash.2d at 383 , 300 P.3d 400 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. O'Hara
green
2 sentences2011App. at 185-87 (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). ¶13 If an appellant successfully shows that the error is both constitutional in magnitude and “manifest,” in that it had practical and identifiable consequences below, the burden then shifts to the State “to prove that the error was harmless . . . under the Chapman standard” 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. 2011App. at 185-87 (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). ¶13 If an appellant successfully shows that the error is both constitutional in magnitude and “manifest,” in that it had practical and identifiable consequences below, the burden then shifts to the State “to prove that the error was harmless . . . under the Chapman standard” 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. O'HARA
green
2 sentences2011App. at 185-87 (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). ¶13 If an appellant successfully shows that the error is both constitutional in magnitude and “manifest,” in that it had practical and identifiable consequences below, the burden then shifts to the State “to prove that the error was harmless . . . under the Chapman standard” 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. 2011App. at 185-87 (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). ¶13 If an appellant successfully shows that the error is both constitutional in magnitude and “manifest,” in that it had practical and identifiable consequences below, the burden then shifts to the State “to prove that the error was harmless . . . under the Chapman standard” 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harrington v. California
red
2 sentences1980The next year, in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969), the court referred specifically to the Chapman rule and affirmed it, but with reference to overwhelming evidence of guilt. 1980The next year, in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969), the court referred specifically to the Chapman rule and affirmed it, but with reference to overwhelming evidence of guilt. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Burri
green
2 sentences1980State v. Stephens, 93 Wn.2d 186, 191 , 607 P.2d 304 (1980), citing from State v. Burri, 87 Wn.2d 175 , 550 P.2d 507 (1976). 1980State v. Stephens, 93 Wn.2d 186, 191 , 607 P.2d 304 (1980), citing from State v. Burri, 87 Wn.2d 175 , 550 P.2d 507 (1976). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. MacK
green
2 sentences1980However, the court quoted from the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Mack, 80 Wn.2d 19 , 490 P.2d 1303 (1971), in which it referred to State v. Martin, supra , *814 which omitted mention of the Chapman rule. 1980However, the court quoted from the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Mack, 80 Wn.2d 19 , 490 P.2d 1303 (1971), in which it referred to State v. Martin, supra , *814 which omitted mention of the Chapman rule. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Spencer
green
2 sentences1980The court also stated that it was unable to find a distinction in the rule expressed in State v. Martin, supra, and Chapman v. California, supra. In State v. Spencer, 9 Wn. 1980The court also stated that it was unable to find a distinction in the rule expressed in State v. Martin, supra, and Chapman v. California, supra. In State v. Spencer, 9 Wn. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.