State v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Washington · Decided 1997-12-18

Cited by 129 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Talmadge, J. (concurring) — I agree with the majority opinion except in its needless discussion of whether the State’s motion to amend pursuant to CrR 2.1(d) was proper. We do not need to reach the question of whether *894 CrR 2.1(d) was violated in this case because the trier of fact may find a defendant guilty of any crime of a degree inferior to that charge in the in…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.