79 Wash. App. 701 - State v. Bacani’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The State charged Bacani with “unlawfully attempt [ing] to take [money], with intent to steal from” the victims. We are at a loss to understand what this could mean except that he tried to take their money from them. However, .. . we are constrained to rule that, under Johnson’s [State v. Johnson, 119 Wn.2d 143 , 829 P.2d 1078 (1992)] strict construction test, the information charging Bacani with attempted first degree robbery was constitutionally deficient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Borrero · 147 Wash. 2d 353 - State v. Borrero

2. “To convict the defendant of the crime of robbery in the first degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 31st day of October, 1997, the defendant or an accomplice unlawfully took personal property from the person or in the presence of another; (2) That the defendant or an accomplice intended to commit theft of the property; (3) That the taking was against the person’s will by the defendant’s use or threatened use of immediate force, violence or fear of injury to that person; (4) That the force or fear was used by the defendant to obtain or retain possession of the property or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; (5) That in the commission of these acts or in immediate flight therefrom the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon or displayed what appeared to be a firearm; and (6) That the acts occurred in the State of Washington. If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.[ 3 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 Wash. App. 936 - State v. Phillips

3. “did not suffice to incorporate the essential element of attempted first degree robbery that someone other than the defendant had an ownership or possessory interest in the property taken, even though”

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