Legal Opinion

State v. Goodman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 2004No. 73533-6PublishedCited by 121 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.

Petitioner Jay L. Goodman challenges his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a). The amended information upon which he was convicted identified the controlled substance as “meth” rather than the full name “methamphetamine,” though the original information did fully identify the specific controlled substance. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a partially published opinion, holding the prosecution need not identify in the information the specific controlled substance which forms the basis for a single RCW 69.50.401(a) violation.…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. State v. GreenWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. SalinasWashington Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by121 opinions

  1. State v. HomanWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. YatesWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. YatesWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. PillatosWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. GoodmanWashington Supreme Court · 2004

116 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