State v. Wiggins

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Luther

    157 Wn. 2d 63 (Wash. 2006)   Cited 71 times
    In Luther, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted possession of child pornography if the State provided that the defendant believed he was possessing child pornography or clearly intended to obtain child pornography, regardless of whether the State proved that the sexually explicit images were actually children.157 Wash.2d at 73–74, 134 P.3d 205.

    A defendant may be convicted of attempting to commit a crime charged, even if attempt is not specifically charged. RCW 10.61.003 ("[u]pon an indictment or information for an offense consisting of different degrees, the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the degree charged in the indictment or information, and guilty of any degree inferior thereto, or of an attempt to commit the offense"); RCW 10.61.010 ("[u]pon the trial of an indictment or information, the defendant may be convicted of the crime charged therein, or of a lesser degree of the same crime, or of an attempt to commit the crime so charged, or of an attempt to commit a lesser degree of the same crime"); see State v. Wiggins, 114 Wn. App. 478, 485, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002); State v. Gallegos, 65 Wn. App. 230, 234, 828 P.2d 37 (1992). ¶11 Luther appealed his conviction.

  2. Hopovac v. State, Dep't of Corr.

    197 Wn. App. 817 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017)

    ¶33 The majority fails to recognize the universal view that use of the singular includes the plural, and the plural the singular. RCW 70.74.010 ; Yousoufian v. Office of King County Exec. , 152 Wash.2d 421, 434, 98 P.3d 463 (2004) ; State v. Nugent , 20 Wash. 522, 523, 56 P. 25 (1899) ; State v. Veazie , 123 Wash.App. 392, 396, 98 P.3d 100 (2004) ; State v . Wiggins , 114 Wash.App. 478, 483, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002) ; Hinton v. Johnson , 87 Wash.App. 670, 675, 942 P.2d 1061 (1997) ; State v. Welty , 44 Wash.App. 281, 283, 726 P.2d 472 (1986). Since courts apply the Restatement verbatim, Restatement sections function as statutes.

  3. Hopovac v. State

    197 Wn. App. 817 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017)

    ¶33 The majority fails to recognize the universal view that use of the singular includes the plural, and the plural the singular. RCW 70.74.010 ; Yousoufian v. Office of King County Exec. , 152 Wash.2d 421, 434, 98 P.3d 463 (2004) ; State v. Nugent , 20 Wash. 522, 523, 56 P. 25 (1899) ; State v. Veazie , 123 Wash.App. 392, 396, 98 P.3d 100 (2004) ; State v . Wiggins , 114 Wash.App. 478, 483, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002) ; Hinton v. Johnson , 87 Wash.App. 670, 675, 942 P.2d 1061 (1997) ; State v. Welty , 44 Wash.App. 281, 283, 726 P.2d 472 (1986). Since courts apply the Restatement verbatim, Restatement sections function as statutes.

  4. State v. Arita

    No. 46948-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2016)

    Turning to the second Bash factor, RCW 70.74.022 shares many characteristics with typical public welfare offenses. State v. Wiggins, 114 Wn.App. 478, 482, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002). Turning to the fourth Bash factor, RCW 70.74.022 is a class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

  5. Estate v. McGraw Residential

    159 Wn. App. 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    "If statutory language is susceptible of two constructions — one of which will promote the purpose of the statute and the second of which will defeat it — courts will adopt the former." State v. Wiggins, 114 Wn. App. 478, 482, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002). The interpretation I propose promotes the purpose of the statute, which is to provide a cause of action, not deny one.

  6. State v. Roberts

    158 Wn. App. 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

    We disagree. Assuming that these attempted crimes are lesser included offenses of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree, State v. Wiggins, 114 Wn. App. 478, 485, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002), an instruction on a lesser included offense was not warranted here. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if two conditions are met. "First, each of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the offense charged.

  7. Postema v. Postema Enters., Inc.

    118 Wn. App. 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 25 times
    Interpreting “support” in light of legislature's statement of intent

    Because this previously unsettled question of law deprived Scarbrough of his right to recover for his son's death, substantial justice has not been served in this case, and we remand for a new trial under CR 59.State v. Wiggins, 114 Wn. App. 478, 482, 57 P.3d 1199 (2002) (concluding if a statute "is susceptible to two constructions — one of which will promote the purpose of the statute and the second of which will defeat it — [the] courts will adopt the former"); Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)