15 Wash. App. 172 - State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams (1981), 93 Wash. 2d 186 - State v. Stephens (1980)
29 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Rinaldi v. Yeager · 48 Wash. 2d 545 - In RE OLSEN v. Delmore · Patterson v. State · 78 Wash. 2d 9 - State v. Zornes · 73 Wash. 2d 303 - State v. Peterson
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhen a defendant in the procedural setting of a criminal trial makes a tactical choice in pursuit of some real or hoped for advantage, he may not later urge his own action as a ground for reversing his conviction even though he may have acted to deprive himself of some constitutional right. A criminal defendant is entitled to a fair trial from the state, including due process. He is not denied due process by the state when such denial results from his own act, nor may the state be required to protect him from himself.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person who shall commit or attempt to commit any felony, or any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor categorized herein as inherently dangerous, while armed with, or in the possession of any firearm, shall upon conviction, in addition to the penalty provided by statute for the crime committed without use or possession of a firearm, be imprisoned as herein provided . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The instant case is unusual in that it does not arise from the giving of the prosecution’s instructions over a defense objection ... nor from a refusal to give a requested defense instruction ____ Rather, we have the unique situation of the defendant himself requesting the instructions and, of course, not objecting to them at trial so they became the law of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Padilla
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.