State v. Aguirre

One of the hardest things to blog about are cases where really no new law is made. In this case, the court held the following:

1. The prosecutions expert was hunky dory;
2. Some testimony by the defense was properly excluded;
3. Cross-exam was properly limited because the rape-shield law still exists;
4. The Court’s instruction on “unlawful force” was proper;
5. Refusing to continue sentencing isn’t an abuse of discretion, because, while you’re entitled to counsel, picking a particular counsel has limites;
6. Sentencing enhancements are not a violation of double jeopardy laws.

All in all, rather boring, as far as the law is concerned.

This entry was posted on March 8, 2010 at 2:43 pm and is filed under Criminal Law, Justice Jim Johnson - Draft Majority, WA Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.