Donald D. Beckett v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• allowing the appellant to raise a new legal argument about the scope of a Washington statute because it fit within the preserved question of “whether [his] Washington drug conviction qualifie[d] as an aggravated felony”
• “Because the conduct a state statute proscribes ‘is a question of [state] law,’ we ‘look to the state’s courts to answer this question.’”
• “[D]espite this difference in language [between knowledge and intent] No. 22-2278 9 the mens-rea requirements for accomplice liability under the [state] statute and the federal Act do not diverge.”
• arriving at the same conclusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).