121 Wash. App. 737 - State v. Warnick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To convict the defendant of the crime of manufacture of a controlled substance, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 19th day of December, 2001, the defendant manufactured a controlled substance; (2) That the defendant knew that the substance manufactured was methamphetamine; and (3) That the acts occurred in the State of Washington. If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if, after weighing all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Warnick

2. “a controlled substance is sufficient to charge the guilty knowledge element of the crime. Id. Here, the information alleged Ms. Warnick”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Warnick

3. “That the defendant knew that the substance manufactured was a controlled substance, methamphetamine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Warnick