Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Garza

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 2003No. 72959-0Published

1ConcurrenceSanders, J.

(concurring) — Although I agree with the majority’s disposition, I do not agree with its analysis.

The majority acknowledges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial is a fundamental right that can be waived only if the waiver is voluntary and knowing, yet it adopts the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review Benjamin Garza’s claim. Majority at 366, 369. The majority’s decision is inconsistent with Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1252, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991) (holding the ultimate issue of vol-untariness is a legal question) and Rice v.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Cooper v. AaronSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. Aetna Insurance v. Kennedy Ex Rel. BogashSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. Smith v. Stillwell-SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1998

15 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