State v. Lorenz’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Reichenbach (2004), State v. Stevens (2006)
44 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · Beckwith v. United States · State v. Thorne · 116 Wash. 2d 342 - Rozner v. City of Bellevue
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stevens · State v. Stevens“a reasonable person in the individual's position would believe. . . she was in police custody to a degree associated with formal arrest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“RCW 9A.44.083 unambiguously states that a person is guilty of the crime of first degree of child molestation if: (1) the perpetrator has sexual contact (2) with victim who is less than twelve years old, and (3) perpetrator is at least thirty six months older than the victim. The plain meaning rule applies. The legislature codified “sexual contact” as an essential element of first degree child molestation. The definition of “sexual contact” is in RCW 9A.44.010(2), a wholly separate section of chapter 9A.44 RCW, entitled “Definitions.” Had the legislature intended a term to serve as an element of the crime, it would have placed “for the purposes of sexual gratification” in RCW 9A.44.083. Rather, the definition of “sexual contact” clarifies the meaning such that it excludes inadvertent touching or contact from being a crime. State v. Gurrola, 69 Wn. App. 152, 157 , 848 P.2d 199 (1993); State v. Brown, 78 Wn. App. 891, 895 , 899 P.2d 34 (1995). A plain reading of the statute favors a holding that “sexual gratification” is not an essential element to the crime of first degree child molestation but a definition clarifying the meaning of the essential element “sexual contact.” On this basis, we hold that “sexual gratification” is not an essential element of first degree child molestation. The State offers three additional reasons in support of the court holding that “sexual gratification” is not an essential element of first degree child molestation: First, the State asserts that co”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Saunders
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.