Skip to main content

State v. Faust

Citations

  • 967 P.2d 1284
  • 93 Wash. App. 373

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 definition of “firearm” is not limited “to only those guns capable of being fired during the commission of the crime”
  • holding that the Tongate language Pam relied on did not limit the definition of a “firearm” to one capable of being fired during the crime. Rather, the distinction was between a toy gun and a gun “in fact” (emphasis added)
  • holding that a malfunctioning firearm is a firearm for purposes of RCW 9.94A.310(3)(b) (the statute providing for a mandatory three-year sentencing enhancement for second degree assault where “the offender . . . was armed with a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010”)
  • \eyewitness testimony to a real gun that is neither discharged nor recovered is sufficient to support deadly weapons and/or firearms penalty enhancements\
  • language in Pam on operability refers to the difference between a toy gun and a gun in fact; a gun incapable of being fired due to a mechanical defect is still a firearm
  • language in Pam on operability refers to the difference between a toy gun and a gun in fact; a gun incapable of being fired due to a mechanical defect is still a firearm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Armstrong

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 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.