Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 P.3d 803 - State v. Pete

State v. Pete’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Marshall v. United States · 125 Wash. 2d 24 - State v. Russell · Johnson v. Johnson · State v. Bourgeois · 55 Wash. App. 685 - Odegaard v. Everett School District No. 2

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

  1. “The jury’s receipt of this extrinsic evidence after the close of its evidence presented a “no win” situation for [the defendant] because he was not able to object to or explain the extrinsic evidence. Furthermore, his counsel was unable to cross-examine either the transport officer or the officer who took [the defendant’s] statement. The fact that the bailiff instructed the jurors to not consider the extrinsic evidence does not, in our view, mitigate the harmfulness of the error. Even if the trial court had given the instruction, which would be the appropriate practice, the same can be said.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “consider[s] extrinsic evidence and if it does, that may be a basis for a new trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.