Washington Supreme Court· 12/14/2000

State v. Roberts

Citations

142 Wash. 2d 471
14 P.3d 713

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”
holding that there was no confrontation clause concern and applying these reliability factors to a statement against interest
recognizing that the “Washington State Constitution’s cruel punishment clause often provides greater protection than the Eighth 20 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 98824-2 Amendment”
stating that conclusions based on nonnovel methods of scientific proof are not susceptible to exclusion under Frye
finding that the legislative history of the accomplice liability statute requires the mens rea of knowledge of the particular crime
concluding, on facts similar to those before us, that a trial judge has discretion, under the rule of completeness, to require admission of the entire statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ireland, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

143 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.