114 Wash. 2d 340 - State v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably 118 Wash. 2d 151 - State v. Hopper (1992), 118 Wash. 2d 424 - State v. Markle (1992)
32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bibby v. United States · 104 Wash. 2d 412 - State v. Guloy · 110 Wash. 2d 682 - State v. Scott · Walker v. Illinois · 105 Wash. 2d 692 - State v. Kwan Fai Mak
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him ... so as to enable the accused to prepare a defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In short, what we held in Mak was that a defendant cannot fail in his duty to except to lesser included offense instructions that potentially benefit him, and then on appeal claim reversible error based on those instructions. Yet that is precisely what the defendant is attempting here. The present case is even more egregious than Mak , because here the defendant profited from the trial court’s giving of the lesser offense instructions to the extent that he was convicted of the lesser offense of indecent liberties rather than the more serious offense of first degree statutory rape with which he was charged. We hold in this case, as we did in Mak , that “the lesser included offense instruction that was given, not having been excepted to at trial, became the law of the case.” [[Image here]] The defendant claims that the lesser included offense instructions constituted an error of constitutional magnitude because they violated his constitutional right to notice of the charges filed against him. An accused has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her so as to enable the accused to prepare a defense. “[T]his can only be made known by setting forth in the indictment or information every fact constituting an element of the offense charged.” Here, the charge of statutory rape in the first degree technically failed to notify the defendant of the nonmarriage requirement of indecent liberties. However, the defendant had ample noti”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Derksen v. State“It is well-settled law that before error can be claimed on the basis of a jury instruction given by the trial court, an appellant must first show that an exception was taken to that instruction in the trial court. That rule is not a mere technicality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barnett
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.