Legal Opinion

State v. Shepard

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 1, 2012No. 30504-0-IIIPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

¶1 Conviction for third degree assault, as charged here, requires a showing that the defendant used an “instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.” RCW 9A.36.031(l)(d). Here, the defendant assaulted his former girl friend by striking her and pushing her. She struck furniture and was seriously injured. The question before the court is whether the furniture she struck satisfies the statutory requirement of an instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm. Our Supreme Court has already answered that question in a unanimous opinion in State v. Marohl, 170 Wn.2d 691, 246 P.3d 177…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  2. State v. MontanoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. State v. MarohlWashington Supreme Court · 2010

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Of Washington v. Stephen TimmonsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  2. State v. ShepardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API