Case Citator › State v. Thorne

State v. Thorne

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
921 P.2d 514
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
2004
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. State v. Thorne has been abrogated in part on jury findings for facts that increase a sentence beyond the authorized maximum. All 32 flagged citations have been read, with the confirmed treatment listed below.
More on how this was screened

Thorne had said a judge could make a deadly weapon finding if it was a sentencing factor. In In re Personal Restraint of Eastmond, the Washington Supreme Court identified Blakely v. Washington as ending that practice. Blakely left the prior conviction exception intact; Thorne's separate holdings on the adult three strikes sentence and other constitutional challenges are not displaced by this ruling.

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.

32 later cases cite State v. Thorne; 32 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. Thorne?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced Thorne's rule allowing a judge to find a deadly weapon sentencing fact when that finding increases punishment beyond the maximum authorized by the verdict or plea.

    Blakely v. Washington · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our precedents make clear, however, that the “statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Thorne 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