Legal Opinion
Born v. Thompson
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 4, 2005No. 74126-3PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 Petitioner Mark Born challenges the Court of Appeals’ holding that the standard of proof necessary to detain an individual under RCW 10.77.090(1)(d)(i) for restoration of competency to stand trial for certain misdemeanors is by a preponderance of the evidence. We hold that due process requires that proof must be by clear and convincing evidence and that under this standard the State did not prove that Mr. Born was charged with a violent act as required for commitment for competency restoration under RCW 10.77.090(1)(d)(i).
Madsen, J.
Facts
|2 The parties have agreed to the facts contained in…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Spencer v. KemnaSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Maleng v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In re the Detention of M.K.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- In re the Detention of M.W.Washington Supreme Court · 2016
- Ongom v. Dept. of HealthWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Korst v. McMahonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Korst v. McMahonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.