State v. P.E.T.
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
f 1 — At issue is whether the trial court improperly placed on Parish Tate the burden of proving his incompetence at a competency hearing under former chapter 10.77 RCW (2010). The hearing occurred during the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition on the charge of second degree robbery.
Cox, J.
¶2 We previously concluded that the trial court erroneously placed the burden of proving incompetence on Tate, and we reversed and remanded.1 Following that decision, the supreme court, in State v. Coley, made clear that the burden of proof under this chapter is on the party challenging…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Medina v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. BennWashington Supreme Court · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. John Alan Whitaker, App-crossCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
- Peo in Interest of A.C.E-DColorado Court of Appeals · 2018
- State Of Washington, V. Alexandria LockhartCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2025
- State v. TateWashington Supreme Court · 2015