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 1908–2020 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 Of Washington v. George Abraham Dillongreen1 sentence2020App. 2d ___, 456 P.3d 1199, 1207 (2020). 3 No. 79309-8-I/4 prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect.”[7] Oltman does not dispute that he had a marijuana grow operation in his house. | 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. Gresham
green
2 sentences2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p 2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p | 3 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Foxhoven
green
2 sentences2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p 2017So long as the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we will review its decision to admit or exclude evidence under ER 404(b) for "an abuse of discretion." State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 419 , 263 P.3d 207 (2012) (citing Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 174 ). | 2 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007State v. Williams, 87 Wn.2d 916, 920 , 557 P.2d 1311 (1976) (noting that the time-for-trial rule was patterned after the ABA Standards Relating to Speedy Trial). 2007State v. Williams, 87 Wn.2d 916, 920 , 557 P.2d 1311 (1976) (noting that the time-for-trial rule was patterned after the ABA Standards Relating to Speedy Trial). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Foxhoven
green
2 sentences2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p 2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Mason
green
1 sentence2017"Abuse of discretion" means "no reasonable judge would have ruled as the trial court did." State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910,934 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) (citing State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Thang
green
1 sentence2017"Abuse of discretion" means "no reasonable judge would have ruled as the trial court did." State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910,934 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) (citing State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Mason
green
1 sentence2017"Abuse of discretion" means "no reasonable judge would have ruled as the trial court did." State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910,934 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) (citing State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Thang
green
1 sentence2017"Abuse of discretion" means "no reasonable judge would have ruled as the trial court did." State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910,934 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) (citing State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. DeVincentis
green
1 sentence2014State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 17 , 74 P.3d 119 (2003). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. DeVincentis
green
1 sentence2014State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 17 , 74 P.3d 119 (2003). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Straub
green
2 sentences1908In State v. Straub, 16 Wash. 111 , 47 Pac. 227 , the court made it clear that an instruction which does not so directly connect the two is not objectionable. 1908In State v. Straub, 16 Wash. 111 , 47 Pac. 227 , the court made it clear that an instruction which does not so directly connect the two is not objectionable. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.