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.
6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2019 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. Hutchinsongreen2 sentences2002In our order of September 26, 1988, we stated as follows: The trial court's May 25, 1988 order requiring that Mr. Hutchinson submit to an examination by a State's expert is affirmed, but neither the interposing of a diminished capacity defense by Mr. Hutchinson nor his submission to this examination shall be deemed to waive his constitutional right against self-incrimination[.] Hutchinson I, 111 Wash.2d at 874 , 766 P.2d 447 (emphasis added). 2002In our order of September 26, 1988, we stated as follows: “The trial court’s May 25, 1988 order requiring that Mr. Hutchinson submit to an examination by a State’s expert is affirmed, but neither the interposing of a diminished capacity defense by Mr. Hutchinson nor his submission to this examination shall be deemed to waive his constitutional right against self-incrimination [.] ” Hutchinson I, 111 Wn.2d at 874 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hutchinson
red
2 sentences2019The fact that the State had to prove that the firearm could be fired also implicates the second factor of the Hutchinson test, the impact of witness preclusion on the evidence at trial and the outcome of the case. 135 Wn.2d at 882-83 . 2019The fact that the State had to prove that the firearm could be fired also implicates the second factor of the Hutchinson test, the impact of witness preclusion on the evidence at trial and the outcome of the case. 135 Wn.2d at 882-83 . | 3 | 2010–2019 |
State v. Daniels
neutral
2 sentences2016App. 109 , 332 P.3d 1143 (2014). 2016Accordingly, Hutchinson’s claim fails.13 13 Hutchinson also cites State v. Daniels to support his argument. 183 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.