Case Citator › State v. Recuenco

State v. Recuenco

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
110 P.3d 188
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
2006
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Overruled in part: all 40 flagged citations have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below. Washington v. Recuenco reversed the 2005 decision's holding that a failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury can never be harmless under the Sixth Amendment.
More on how this was screened

The Washington Supreme Court later affirmed the result on remand under state law. The original decision's jury finding requirement and its resentencing ruling were not displaced by the federal harmless error decision.

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.

40 later cases cite State v. Recuenco; 40 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. Recuenco?

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 Supreme Court reversed Recuenco's rule that a missing jury finding on a sentencing factor is always structural error under federal law.

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

    On appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington vacated the sentence, concluding that Blakely violations can never be harmless. We granted certiorari to review this conclusion, 546 U. S. 960 (2005), and now reverse.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Recuenco 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