Case Citator › State v. Kitchen

State v. Kitchen

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
756 P.2d 105
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
173 of 173
Citing cases (total)
497
Treatment dates
2012–2014
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. State v. Kitchen has been abrogated in part: all 173 flagged citations were substantively reviewed, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. In re the Personal Restraint of Stockwell rejected Kitchen's broad presumption that constitutional errors that can never be harmless on direct appeal are also presumed prejudicial on collateral review.
More on how this was screened

Kitchen's multiple-acts and jury-unanimity rules remain in use, although State v. Brown criticized its broad alternative-means formulation as confusing in application. The other reviewed opinions applied Kitchen, reported its treatment of State v. Petrich or other precedent, or directed nearby adverse language at unrelated authorities and procedural rulings. Duplicate flagged citations were processed separately.

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.

497 later cases cite State v. Kitchen; 173 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. Kitchen?

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 Washington Supreme Court rejected Kitchen's broad collateral-review presumption and required a petitioner challenging a guilty plea based on misinformation about the statutory maximum to show actual and substantial prejudice.

    In re the Personal Restraint of Stockwell · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    Stockwell also argues that older cases (Kitchen, Boone, Richardson, and Gunter) support his claim that he is not required to meet the actual and substantial prejudice standard. As discussed above, this court specifically rejected the broad language in these cases that would hold that “constitutional errors which can never be considered harmless on direct appeal will also be presumed prejudicial *601for the purposes of personal restraint petitions.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Kansas Supreme Court criticized Kitchen's broad alternative-means formulation as confusing in application while retaining its core unanimity principle.

    State v. Brown · Supreme Court of Kansas · filed

    In past cases, to the extent we have defined the term “alternative means” at all, we have done so only obliquely through one broad sentence borrowed without elaboration or explanation from the Washington Supreme Court: “ 'In an alternative means case,... a single offense may be committed in more than one way.’ ” Timley, 255 Kan. at 289 (quoting Kitchen, 110 Wash. 2d at 410). This sentence, straightforward on its face but mind-bending in its application, has led to confusion and disagreement among panels of the Court of Appeals.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Kitchen 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