Court of Appeals of Washington· 3/15/2005

State v. O'NEAL

Citations

109 P.3d 429
126 Wash. App. 395

How courts have described this case

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

discussing [ State v. Holt, 119 Wash.App. 712, 82 P.3d 688 (2004)] and [ State v. Willis, 153 Wash.2d 366, 103 P.3d 1213 (2005)]
discussing [State v. Holt, 119 Wn. App. 712, 82 P.3d 688 (2004)] and [State v. Willis, 153 Wn.2d 366, 103 P.3d 1213 (2005)]
applying same evidence test to determine whether convictions under two different subsections of former RCW 69.50.401(a)(1) (2000) implicated double jeopardy
analyzing this exact instruction and concluding that, “[h]ere, the instructional language at issue in Cronin does not exist because instruction 16 referred to 'the crime.' Instruction 16 did not misstate the law and Harry's argument fails”
analyz- ing this exact instruction and concluding that, “[h]ere, the instructional language at issue in Cronin does not exist because instruction 16 referred to ‘the crime.’ Instruction 16 did not misstate the law and Harry’s argu- ment fails”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Houghton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

58 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.