Case Citator › State v. Harris

State v. Harris

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
685 P.2d 584
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
48 of 48
Citing cases (total)
48
Treatment dates
1990–1991
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Harris was overruled in part on two evidence rulings. All 48 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continue to apply its separate holdings on cautionary accomplice instructions and double jeopardy challenges to firearm enhancements.

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.

48 later cases cite State v. Harris; 48 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. Harris?

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 in part

  • The Washington Supreme Court overruled Harris's constitutional harmless error standard for erroneous rulings admitting prior convictions for impeachment, adopting a nonconstitutional standard instead.

    State v. Brown · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    Upon reconsideration, we hold that the harmless error standard for erroneous ER 609(a) rulings should be the same nonconstitutional harmless error standard which we apply to ER 404(b) rulings. Thus, erroneous ER 609(a) rulings are not reversible error "unless, within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected." (Citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780, 725 P.2d 951 (1986). We overrule the holdings in Jones and State v. Harris, 102 Wn.2d 148, 685 P.2d 584 (1984), adopting a constitutional harmless error standard for erroneous ER 609(a)(1) and (2) rulings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Washington Supreme Court overruled Harris's holding that a stolen property conviction was inadmissible for impeachment under ER 609(a)(2).

    State v. McKinsey · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    By our holding in this case we necessarily overrule State v. Harris, 102 Wn.2d 148, 685 P.2d 584 (1984) and State v. Zibell, 32 Wn. App. 158, 646 P.2d 154, review denied, 97 Wn.2d 1039 (1982), insofar as they held that evidence of a conviction for possession of stolen property was not admissible under ER 609(a)(2).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Harris 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