Washington Supreme Court· 3/15/1984

State v. Allen

Citations

678 P.2d 798
101 Wash. 2d 355
1984 Wash. LEXIS 1547

How courts have described this case

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

stating the defendant’s state of mind is the element separating burglary from the lesser included offense of criminal trespass
“It is clear that the trial court must instruct the jury on every element of the crime.” (citing Emmanuel, 42 Wn.2d at 819)
“intent” and “knowledge,” “because they have been statutorily defined, have specific legal definitions aside from any common understanding or dictionary definitions which might be ascribed to them”
\RCW Title 9A was designed to replace the concepts of specific and general intent with four levels of culpability in RCW 9A.08.010.\
“trial courts must define technical words and expressions used in jury instructions, but need not define words and expressions that are of common understanding”
\trial court must instruct the jury on every element of the crime\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dore, Dolliver

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.