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 1999–2020 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 v. Rafaygreen2 sentences2020See State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 734, 779 , 285 P.3d 83 (2012)(finding that informing the jury panel that a case did not involve the death penalty could be a legitimate strategic tactic, "[i]n light ofthe highly publicized circumstances"); Br. of Amicus Curiae WAPA at 4-20 (calling for us to overturn Townsend). 2020See State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 734, 779 , 285 P.3d 83 (2012)(finding that informing the jury panel that a case did not involve the death penalty could be a legitimate strategic tactic, "[i]n light ofthe highly publicized circumstances"); Br. of Amicus Curiae WAPA at 4-20 (calling for us to overturn Townsend). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2019See Hicks, 163 Wn.2d at 488 . 2019See Hicks, 163 Wn.2d at 488 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Davis, 119 Wash.2d 657, 664-65 , 835 P.2d 1039 (1992) ("[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient . . . requir[ing] showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" (alterations in original) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))). 2008See State v. Davis, 119 Wash.2d 657, 664-65 , 835 P.2d 1039 (1992) ("[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient . . . requir[ing] showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" (alterations in original) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Masonyellow2 sentences2008But cf. State v. Mason, 160 Wash.2d 910, 931 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) ( Townsend error can be harmless). ¶ 44 I write separately solely on the issue of whether this technical error on defense counsel's part amounts to deficient performance thus meeting the first element of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2008But cf. State v. Mason, 160 Wash.2d 910, 931 , 162 P.3d 396 (2007) ( Townsend error can be harmless). ¶ 44 I write separately solely on the issue of whether this technical error on defense counsel's part amounts to deficient performance thus meeting the first element of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lord
red
2 sentences2001State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991). 2001State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Gregory
green
2 sentences2020State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 ,19, 427 P.3d 621 (2018). 2020State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 ,19, 427 P.3d 621 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2018Nelson, 103 Wn.2d at 764 ; In re Pers. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008See State v. Davis, 119 Wash.2d 657, 664-65 , 835 P.2d 1039 (1992) ("[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient . . . requir[ing] showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" (alterations in original) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))). 2008See State v. Davis, 119 Wash.2d 657, 664-65 , 835 P.2d 1039 (1992) ("[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient . . . requir[ing] showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" (alterations in original) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pirtle
green
2 sentences1999II Proof of Premeditation A charge of first degree murder requires the State to prove premeditation for “ ‘more than a moment in point of time,’ RCW 9A.32.020(1), but mere opportunity to deliberate is not sufficient to support a finding of premeditation.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 644 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). 1999II Proof of Premeditation A charge of first degree murder requires the State to prove premeditation for “ ‘more than a moment in point of time,’ RCW 9A.32.020(1), but mere opportunity to deliberate is not sufficient to support a finding of premeditation.” State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 644 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.