67 Wash. App. 81 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
19 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway · Wilson v. Porter · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 109 Wash. 2d 947 - Allingham v. City of Seattle
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"After the hearing, the court shall set forth in writing: (1) the undisputed facts; (2) the disputed facts; (3) conclusions as to the disputed facts; and (4) conclusion as to whether the statement is admissible and the reasons therefor."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“failure to enter findings required by CrR 3.5 is considered harmless error if the court's oral findings are sufficient to permit appellate review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e hold that multiple victims injured by the conduct forming the basis of a charged crime can provide a legally sufficient basis for an exceptional sentence. The presumptive range of vehicular homicide is based on there being one victim of the charged crime—the decedent. When in reality the conduct forming the basis of the charge creates multiple victims, an exceptional sentence is permissible to ensure that the sentence given is proportional to the offense. We note that in this circumstance, the court is not so much looking at other uncharged crimes as an aggravating factor as it is looking at the consequences of the charged crime. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in determining that there was a multiple victims’ aggravating circumstance justifying appellant’s sentence.”
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.