Legal Opinion

State v. Vincent

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided September 16, 2005No. 53914-1-IPublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*149¶1

Ellington, J.

— Two drive-by shootings led two brothers to a joint trial and multiple convictions. Vidal Vincent argues the admission of his nontestifying brother’s statements violated his rights under the confrontation clause. He also argues that the court erred in denying his motions to sever, that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on the charge of drive-by shooting, that admission of the nontestifying victim’s statements violated his federal and state confrontation clause rights under Crawford v. Washington,1 and that his convictions for drive-by shooting and assault…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Schneble v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State v. FisherWashington Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. HolderSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  3. State v. LarsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  4. State v. PerezSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2018
  5. State v. StatlerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011

18 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