Legal Opinion

In re the Personal Restraint of Domingo

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 2005No. Nos. 75920-1; 75951-1; 75976-6PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 J.M. Johnson, J.

We have previously held that our state’s complicity statute, RCW 9A.08.020, requires that a defendant charged as an accomplice must have general knowledge of the charged crime in order to be convicted of *359that crime. See State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 14 P.3d 713 (2000); State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568, 14 P.3d 752 (2000). Petitioners Jerry Domingo, Kiet Hoang Le, and Bob Kaseweter each claim that they were convicted as an accomplice to various crimes in violation of that standard. Because they had exhausted their direct appeals, they filed personal restraint petitions.

¶2…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. State v. HoffmanWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. LewisWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. In the Matter of CharlesWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. CroninWashington Supreme Court · 2000

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Waddington v. SarausadSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. In re the Personal Restraint of HaghighiWashington Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Cesar Sarausad v. Carol Porter, Cesar Sarausad v. Carol PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  4. State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 2016
  5. In re the Personal Restraint of ColbertWashington Supreme Court · 2016

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API