Washington Supreme Court· 2/14/1991

State v. Earls

Citations

805 P.2d 211
116 Wash. 2d 364
1991 Wash. LEXIS 73

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the “slight difference in wording between [article I, section 9, and the Fifth Amendment] has been held to be nondeterminative, even in a context where the words “evidence” and “witness” commonly express the precise distinction involved”
stating that where the defendant argued article I, section 9 should be interpreted as more protective than its federal counterpart, “resort to the Gunwall analysis is unnecessary because [the 11 See State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 60, 720 P.2d 808 (1986
court declined to invalidate waiver based on unretained attorney’s telephone call to police station in which attorney left message for defendant to call
majority opinion relying on precedent that had interpreted art. 1, § 9, of the Washington Constitution “as being identical in scope to the Fifth Amendment”
Moran applies where defendant knew his ex-wife was trying to retain counsel for him, but did not know police failed to deliver message to call him from attorney she contacted
state and federal constitutions co-extensive, applies Burbine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham, Utter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

42 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.