20 Wash. App. 783 - State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1999
11 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 Griffin v. California · Mullaney v. Wilbur · United States v. Anderson · 84 Wash. 2d 256 - State v. Carothers · United States v. Wilson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor does the instruction's inference of intent, which is based upon RCW 9A.52.040, contravene defendant's due process rights. In the recent case of State v. Bishop, 90 Wn.2d 185 , 580 P.2d 259 (1978), our State Supreme Court held that the presumption of intent provided for in former RCW 9.19.030 did not operate to relieve the State of its burden of persuasion, but only shifted to the defendant the burden of producing some evidence in opposition to it. RCW 9A.52.040 has reduced the former presumption to a standard inference, which merely informs the jury it is permitted, but not obligated to find the requisite intent. Thus the concerns of [State v.] Roberts [ 88 Wn.2d 337 , 562 P.2d 1259 (1977)] and State v. Person, 56 Wn.2d 283 , 352 P.2d 189 , 81 A.L.R.2d 1088 (1960) are not present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. MacReady“Any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to you to have been made without criminal intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. MacReady“Under RCW 9A.08.020, every person involved in the commission of a felony, whether he directly commits the offense or aids and abets in its commission, is regarded and punished as a principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.