WASHINGTON

v.

BARTHOLOMEW

Citator

Cited By

• Campbell v. Kincheloe, 829 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …the statutes of most other states in that aggravating circumstances must be proved at the guilt phase rather than at the sentencing phase of the proceedings. See State v. Bartholomew, 98 Wash.2d 173, 189, 654 P. 2d 1170 (1982), vacated and remanded, 463 U.S. 1203, 103 S.Ct. 3530, 77 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1983), on remand, 101 Wash.2d 631, 683 P. 2d 1079 (1984) (affirming 98 Wash.2d 173, 654 P. 2d 1170). In the sentencing phase, the jury is charged with answering a single convoluted question, to wit: Having in mind…
• Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …ns that the jury was instructed in the statutory language of section 10.95.070 that it could “consider any relevant factors” and was not given the limiting instruction mandated by State v. Bartholomew, 98 Wash.2d 173, 654 P. 2d 1170 (1982), vacated, 463 U.S. 1203, 103 S.Ct. 3530, 77 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1983), adhered to on remand, 101 Wash.2d 631, 683 P. 2d 1079 (1984), that such consideration was limited to relevant mitigating factors. Absent the limiting instruction, he argues that the instruction was unconstitu…