criminal defendant may always challenge (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

criminal defendant may always challenge in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 3 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Hickmangreen
wash · 1998 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999); see State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that an “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”).

2024State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998).

15
State v. Hickmangreen
wash · 1998 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999); see State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that an “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”).

2024State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998).

14

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Sweany neutral
washctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2026It has been a “longstanding maxim that a criminal defendant may always challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for the first time on appeal.” State v. Sweany, 162 Wn.

2026App. 223, 228 , 256 P.3d 1230 (2011); State v. Colquitt, 133 Wn.

22019–2026
State v. Colquitt green
washctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2026App. 223, 228 , 256 P.3d 1230 (2011); State v. Colquitt, 133 Wn.

12026–2026
State v. Ford green
wash · 1999
1 sentence

2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999); see State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that an “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”).

12025–2025
State v. Ford green
wash · 1999
1 sentence

2025State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (1999); see State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that an “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”).

12025–2025
State v. Alvarez green
wash · 1995
1 sentence

2012State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”); State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (recognizing that the sufficiency of the evidence “ ‘is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal’ ” (quoting City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 859 , 784 P.2d 494 (1989))).

12012–2012
State v. Alvarez green
wash · 1995
1 sentence

2012State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”); State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (recognizing that the sufficiency of the evidence “ ‘is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal’ ” (quoting City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 859 , 784 P.2d 494 (1989))).

12012–2012
City of Seattle v. Slack green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2012State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”); State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (recognizing that the sufficiency of the evidence “ ‘is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal’ ” (quoting City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 859 , 784 P.2d 494 (1989))).

2012State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 , 103 n.3, 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (noting that “[a]ppeal is the first time sufficiency of evidence may realistically be raised”); State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (recognizing that the sufficiency of the evidence “ ‘is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal’ ” (quoting City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 859 , 784 P.2d 494 (1989))).

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check