Case Citator › State v. Bergeron

State v. Bergeron

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
711 P.2d 1000
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
78 of 78
Citing cases (total)
78
Treatment dates
1987–1989
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. Bergeron has criticized treatment: all 78 flagged citations have been processed, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. Source gaps are documented below.
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.

78 later cases cite State v. Bergeron; 78 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. Bergeron?

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

Criticized

  • The Washington Court of Appeals criticized Bergeron's characterization of Johnson, concluding that Johnson had not treated the specific intended crime as an element of burglary.

    State v. Henderson · Washington Court of Appeals · filed

    We recognize that there is language in Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d at 8, which suggests that under Johnson the specific crime intended was an "element1' of the *162 offense. However, we think that a careful reading of Johnson, including the language quoted above, demonstrates that such is not the case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court of Washington held Bergeron's rule unavailable retroactively for conduct committed while Johnson controlled because applying Bergeron would reduce the State's burden of proof.

    State v. Handran · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    Under Johnson, the State had to prove not only an intent to commit a crime therein but also the underlying crime the defendant intended to commit. However, under Bergeron, the State does not have to prove the crime the defendant allegedly intended to commit. Therefore, instructing the jury under the Bergeron rule "changes the legal rules to permit less or different testimony to convict the offender than was required when the crime was committed". Edwards, at 71. The instructions violated Hand-ran's due process rights.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Bergeron 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