Legal Opinion

State v. Jackman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 2006No. 76574-0PublishedCited by 100 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 The State seeks reversal of a Court of Appeals decision holding that a reference to minor victims’ birth dates on 11 “to convict” jury instructions was prejudicial per se because the State was relieved of the burden of proving the element of the victims’ ages. The defendant, *739Ryan Alan Jackman, cross-petitions for reversal of the court’s denial of his double jeopardy claim. In accordance with our reasoning in State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006), we hold that the references to the victims’ birth dates were judicial comments on the evidence and we cannot affirmatively conclude…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. State v. PirtleWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State v. PirtleWashington Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by100 opinions

  1. State v. MutchWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State v. YarbroughCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  3. State v. YarbroughCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. AguirreWashington Supreme Court · 2010

95 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