Court of Appeals of Washington· 4/23/2001

State v. Franks

Citations

105 Wash. App. 950

How courts have described this case

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

holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him
citing; State v. Baker, 48 Wash.App. 222, 738 P.2d 327 (1987); State v. Franks, 105 Wash.App. 950, 22 P.3d 269 (2001)
information insufficient when it included defendant's name in the caption of the information, but not in the document's charging language
information insufficient when it included defendant’s name in the caption of the information, but not in the document’s charging language
tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction when it attempts to decide a type of controversy over which it has no authority to adjudicate
“An information that fails to state the essential elements of the charged crime raises an issue . . . [of] lack of due process, not lack of jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baker, Becker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

69 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.