Legal Opinion

State v. Abrams

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 2008No. 79481-2PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

The United States Supreme Court in both Gaudin1 and Johnson2 declared that the materiality of a false statement in a peijury prosecution must be submitted to a jury rather than decided by a trial judge. We must determine whether, under these cases, language in RCW 9A.72.010(1) is constitutionally infirm because it requires the trial judge to determine the materiality of a false statement as a matter of law. If we find this statutory directive invalid, we must determine whether we can sever and strike the offending clause and uphold the remainder of Washington’s peijury statute.

J.M. Johnson,…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. United States v. GaudinSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical CenterWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PSWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Davis v. CoxWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  4. In Re the Personal Restraint of RhomeWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  5. In re the Personal Restraint of HaghighiWashington Supreme Court · 2013

50 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