32 Wash. App. 916 - State v. Chelly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Knowledge' of criminal intent usually resides exclusively in the mind of the defendant. He may unlawfully enter a building with the intent to commit a certain crime, and ultimately commit a different crime, or no crime at all. He is nonetheless guilty of burglary. In either case, the State would be hard pressed to prove entry with intent to commit a crime if it were required to specify exactly which of several crimes available to the defendant he intended to commit. Such a requirement would seriously weaken the enforcement of burglary laws. Of course, in cases where the specific crime intended is made obvious by surrounding circumstances, the better practice would be to identify that crime. Nonetheless, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on the elements of theft.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 100 Wash. 2d 607 - State v. Johnson

2. “Inference of intent. In any prosecution for burglary, 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 the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. MacReady

3. “did enter and remain unlawfully in a building . . . with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein.”

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