Court of Appeals of Washington· 10/18/1996

State v. Edwards

Citations

924 P.2d 397
84 Wash. App. 5
1996 Wash. App. LEXIS 551

How courts have described this case

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

noting that \[t]he ordinary meaning of 'threaten' clearly includes ... future threats\
\The Legislature's failure to amend [a criminal statute] in light of [an appellate opinion omitting an intent requirement] suggests a legislative intent to omit an intent requirement.\
“The Legislature’s failure to amend [a criminal statute] in light of [an appellate opinion omitting an intent requirement] suggests a legislative intent to omit an intent requirement.”
legislature’s failure to amend the law in response to a court’s interpretation implies agreement with that interpretation
State need not prove that threat to injure property is a “true threat” because RCW 9.61.160 criminalizes communicating a threat, not the defendant’s intent to carry it out

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Turner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 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.