State v. Carter

How courts have described this case

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

• sentence enhancement statute is not constitutionally required to have a mens rea element and does not violate due process or equal protection
• public park provision of statute does not violate equal protection under either rational basis or intermediate scrutiny test
• actual delivery in public park; no constitutional requirement that element of knowledge be attached to sentence enhancement
• mens rea not required in federal statute similar to RCW 69.50.435

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Coria
  Washington Supreme Court· 1992-11-12· cited 220×
• State v. Becker
  Washington Supreme Court· 1997-05-01· cited 160×
• State v. Graham
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-03-04· cited 15×
• State v. Henderson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1992-01-28· cited 10×
• State v. Miles
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1992-06-04· cited 5×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-07-12· cited 5×
• State v. Wimbs
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-02-09· cited 5×
• State v. Wimbs
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1994-06-09· cited 4×
• State v. Vinson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1994-05-02· cited 3×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sandstrom v. Montana
  Supreme Court· 1979-06-18· cited 3,585×
• State v. Brayman
  Washington Supreme Court· 1988-03-03· cited 116×
• Harmon v. McNutt
  Washington Supreme Court· 1978-12-07· cited 72×
• State v. Lua
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1991-07-25· cited 25×
• State v. Abbott
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1986-09-08· cited 10×