Legal Opinion

State v. Boling

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 26, 2006No. 22910-6-IIIPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Sweeney, J.

—A trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial is entitled to great deference by this court. Here, the judge granted a new trial in a manslaughter case. A juror confessed that he injected the results of his independent Internet research on the cause of death into the jury deliberations. The trial judge could not rule out that this unproven cause of death (unrelated to and unsupported by any evidence) influenced the finding of guilt here and granted a new trial. That was a proper exercise of discretion, and we affirm.

FACTS

¶2 Brent W. Boling and Shaun Sager were friends. Mr. Sager…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gardner v. MaloneWashington Supreme Court · 1962
  2. State v. CaliguriWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. BalisokWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Cumbie v. CumbieWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  5. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hughes A. BAGLEY, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. BolingCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  3. State v. EarlCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  4. State v. EarlCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  5. State v. GainesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016

10 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