Washington Supreme Court· 1/15/2015

State v. Allen

Citations

182 Wash. 2d 364
341 P.3d 268

How courts have described this case

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

explaining the “critical” distinction between a jury permissibly finding actual knowledge through circumstantial evidence and impermissibly finding a defendant constructively “should have known”
prosecutor repeatedly misstated the element of actual knowledge as being met if the defendant “should have known.”
“[T]he ‘should have known’ standard is incorrect; the jury must find that Allen actually knew Clemmons was going to murder the four police officers.”
“To pass constitutional muster, the jury must find actual knowledge but may make such a finding with circumstantial evidence.”
where the prosecutor repeatedly misstated the law with regard to \knowledge\ and accomplice liability, the court found a substantial likelihood that the misconduct had prejudiced the defendant
when a trial court overrules the defense’s timely objection to the State’s mischaracterization of a legal standard, it can “potentially lead[] the jury to believe that the . . . [mischaracterization] was a proper interpretation of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fairhurst, González, Johnson, Madsen, McCloud, Owens, Stephens, Wiggins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.