Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 Wash. 2d 935 - State v. Slaughter

70 Wash. 2d 935 - State v. Slaughter’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
October 1991
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 1991

18 state decisions

901967197019801990decided

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 70 Wash. 2d 498 - State v. Jackson · State v. Donofrio · 63 Wash. 2d 498 - State v. Courville · 69 Wash. 2d 177 - State v. Coma · 26 Wash. 2d 764 - State v. Grenz

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.

  1. “[W]e are unable to agree with defendant that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. In addition to the circumstantial evidence [of an altercation], we have the testimony of [the victim] that defendant struck him, knocked him down and, although he did not see the weapon which produced them, the blows inflicted wounds which required suturing and medical care. The sight of a blade in defendant's hand would have added little to the direct evidence that he struck his victim, knocked him down, and in so doing inflicted two cutting wounds. Viewed in the light of the argument between [a witness] and defendant, followed immediately with her leaving the two men alone in the hallway, and the complete absence of any other evidence explaining or implying that the wounds could have been inflicted by another person, or by accident, we have proof of circumstances rivaling in persuasiveness direct evidence that the victim saw a weapon in defendant's hand when the blow was struck.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The words “deadly weapon,” as used in this section include, but are not limited to, any instrument known as a blackjack, sling shot, billy, sand club, sandbag, metal knuckles, 'any dirk, dagger, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, any knife having a blade longer than three inches, any razor with an unguarded blade, and any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used as a club, any explosive, and any weapon containing poisonous or injurious gas.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[S]uch evidence not only must concur to show defendant guilty, and be consistent with a hypothesis of guilt, but also must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion and exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt. It is the jury, under proper instructions, which makes the determination whether the circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
    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.