42 Wash. App. 12 - State v. Beck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[e]qual protection of the laws is violated when an accused is charged under one of two statutes containing a more severe penalty for the commission of the same act.” (Italics ours.) State v. Wilson, 39 Wn. App. 883, 885 , 696 P.2d 605 (1985) (citing State v. Danforth, 97 Wn.2d 255 , 643 P.2d 882 (1982)). There is no equal protection violation where a person can be charged under two different statutes describing two offenses which are different because the elements are different. In re Taylor, 105 Wn.2d 67, 68 , 711 P.2d 345 (1985) (citing State v. Wanrow, 91 Wn.2d 301, 312 , 588 P.2d 1320 (1978)). The equal protection argument raised by Mr. Hazzard was addressed in State v. Beck, 42 Wn. App. 12 , 707 P.2d 1380 (1985), after our Commissioner had granted discretionary review in this case. Beck states at page 15: The law can constitutionally place persons in physical control of a vehicle in one classification and persons driving under the influence in another. Physical control means the defendant is in a position to physically regulate and determine movement or lack of movement of the vehicle. To be guilty of driving while intoxicated, the driver must be in physical control and also "must have had the vehicle in motion at the time in question.”

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

2. “No person may be convicted under this section if, prior to being pursued by a law enforcement officer, he has moved the vehicle safely off the roadway.”

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