79 Wash. 2d 469 - State v. Engstrom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 27 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Hardwick, 74 Wn.2d 828 , 447 P.2d 80 (1968), we ... rejected appellant's theory that the instructions did not require a causal connection between intoxication and the death of the person involved. We further held that it is not the law in this state that mere proof of intoxication without regard to proximate cause is sufficient to sustain a negligent homicide conviction. In the instant case, instruction No. 5 substantially follows the statute and instructed the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty of negligent homicide, it was necessary that his act or acts of operating a vehicle while affected by or under the influence of intoxicating liquor proximately caused the mortal injuries. Instruction No. 6 defines the term "proximate cause" to mean that cause which in a direct, unbroken sequence produces the death, and further instructed the jury of the necessity of a causal connection between the act and the death of the person involved. Instruction No. 12, in effect, instructed the jury that they may find the defendant under the influence of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of this case only, if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the intoxicating liquor appreciably impaired his ability to operate his vehicle. It is implicit from these instructions that the operation of the vehicle in an intoxicated condition must be the proximate cause of the death. We therefore find that the instructions contained a proper statement of the law, and that th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Wash. App. 818 - State v. Mearns · 18 Wash. App. 99 - State v. Fateley

2. “The cause of death is a question of fact for the jury to decide from all the facts and circumstances. It is generally customary to introduce expert medical testimony to establish the cause of death; however, proof thereof need not be confined to that character of testimony.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Childs · State v. Perez-Cervantes

3. “To convict the defendant Kim V. Fateley, of the crime of negligent homicide, the State must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the defendant, Kim V. Fateley, on or about the 9th day of August, 1975, while in Okanogan County did operate a motor vehicle; 2. That at the time of the defendant's operation of the motor vehicle one or more of the following was true of the defendant: a. The defendant operated the vehicle in a reckless manner, b. The defendant operated the vehicle with disregard for the safety of others, c. The defendant was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor. 3. That the condition or conditions found to be true under two (2) above did proximately cause the defendant to fail to negotiate a curve and drive over an embankment and 4. That the death of Gregory Riley did ensue within three years as the proximate result of the injury received in the accident. The term "proximate cause" means that cause which in a direct, unbroken sequence produces the death in question and without which such death would not have occurred or happened.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Wash. App. 99 - State v. Fateley