87 Wash. App. 385 - State v. Studd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, defendants are not allowed to request an instruction at trial and later seek reversal on the basis of claimed error relating to the same instruction. State v. Henderson, 114 Wash.2d 867, 868 , 792 P.2d 514 (1990). The policy underlying this rule is the courts do not want to encourage defendants to mislead the court and, therefore, provide a reason for appeal. Id. at 868 [ 792 P.2d 514 ]. However, this case poses a unique situation. Defendants offered a Washington Pattern Jury Instruction which at the time was upheld by this court, only later to be struck by the Supreme Court as an ambiguous and erroneous statement of the law. LeFaber, 128 Wash.2d at 901-02 [ 913 P.2d 369 ]. This case presents circumstances which justify an exception to the invited error rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Studd · State v. Studd

2. “It is a defense to a charge of murder that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer when: (1) The slayer reasonably believed that the person slain intended to inflict death or great personal injury; (2) There was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and (3) The slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him at the time of and prior to the incident. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

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

3. “A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending himself, if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that he is in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable.”

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