¶1¶24 (concurring) — I concur in the majority’s judgment only because no shred of evidence besides the defendant’s confession corroborates the abhorrent crime of which he has been accused. I write separately, however, to emphasize the heightened need for substantiating evidence in sexual assault cases involving very young victims who are likely to be found incompetent to testify.
168 Wash. 2d 243
State v. Dow
Decided February 11, 2010
Washington Supreme Court · decided 2010-02-11
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2014
5 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2010-02-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →