74 Wash. 2d 721 - State v. Hames’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant contends that intent is not a necessary ingredient to prove a case of possession or sale of narcotics under RCW 69.33.230. This has been the holding in State v. Boggs, 57 Wn.2d 484 , 358 P.2d 124 (1961) and in State v. Vindhurst, supra. However, the information in the instant case charged that the defendants “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did have in their possession and did sell.” The jury were so instructed in instruction No. 1 as to the form of information, land in instruction No. 2, as to the elements the state had to prove to convict. The state thus assumed an added burden, the instructions were not excepted to, and thus became the law of the case. This caused intent to become an issue, and brings this case squarely under the ruling of State v. Leohner, supra; . . . In Leohner, supra, the court said at 134: The foregoing instructions were not excepted to and, therefore, became the law of the case. Crippen v. Pul-liam, 61 Wn.2d 725 , 380 P.2d 475 (1963). The case being tried upon the theory that intent was an element of the crime of indecent liberties, it follows that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to consider appellant’s collateral acts in determining whether he intentionally committed the acts with which he was charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Wash. App. 483 - State v. Hennings

2. “`The foregoing instructions were not excepted to and therefore, became the law of the case.'”

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