State v. Meneses
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 To ensure that the State is held to its burden of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, jury instructions must include every essential element of the charged crime(s). Telephone harassment requires that the defendant possess, at the time of initiating the telephone call, the intent to harass or threaten. Here, the jury instructions properly conveyed that temporal element. Meneses raises numerous other issues on appeal, including sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy, and erroneous jury instructions — none of which are meritorious. We affirm.
Grosse, J.
FACTS
¶2 In the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- State v. WorkmanWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- In re the Personal Restraint of OrangeWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. CalleWashington Supreme Court · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- State Of Washington, Resp-cross v. Danny Giles, App-crossCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- State v. MenesesWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. MenesesWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. FuentesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.