Olstad v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the State satisfied this requirement where it “clearly and explicitly elected the three acts on which it was relying for conviction” and “specifically disclaimed its intention to rely on any other instances”
• considering a defendant charged with one count of rape of child in the first degree and one count of child molestation in the first degree
• a multiple acts unanimity instruction is required “only when the State fails to ‘elect the act upon which it will rely for conviction.’”
• State’s election of specific acts for each count makes a Petrich instruction unnecessary
• where State fails to elect which of several distinct criminal acts it will rely on for conviction, defendant is entitled to jury unanimity instruction as to underlying act (citing State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572, 683 P.2d 173 (1984)). 11 State v. Armstrong (Dennis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).