Case Citator › State v. Lucky

State v. Lucky

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
912 P.2d 483
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. State v. Lucky was overruled on its lesser included offense test by State v. Berlin, as listed below. The Washington Supreme Court restored the rule that examines the offense as charged, instead of requiring a lesser offense to fit every statutory way of committing the greater offense.
More on how this was screened

Later courts still cite Lucky's separate standard for reviewing jury instruction decisions. All 46 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

46 later cases cite State v. Lucky; 46 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Lucky?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Washington Supreme Court overruled Lucky's rule requiring a proposed lesser offense to be included in every statutory means of committing the greater offense.

    State v. Berlin · Supreme Court of Washington, en banc · filed

    We now recognize an inconsistency with our decision in Lucky. In Lucky, it was never shown that the Workman analysis is incorrect or harmful. We recognized the rule of stare decisis without fully analyzing why the Workman interpretation had failed. Noting the irony of our current position, we nevertheless retreat to reaffirming the lesser included rule as laid forth in Workman, prior to our discussions in Curran, Davis, and Lucky. To establish that an offense is a lesser included offense, the rule is: first, each of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the offense charged; second, the evidence in the case must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed. Workman, 90 Wash.2d at 447-48, 584 P.2d 382. To the extent Lucky is inconsistent with Workman, it is expressly overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Lucky and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace