Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Frederick Leslie Gocken, Petitioner; The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mistie B. Crisler, Petitioner
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1995-06-22
Citations: 127 Wash. 2d 95
Docket Number: Nos. 61482-2; 61603-5
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Frederick Leslie Gocken, Petitioner. The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mistie B. Crisler, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 95–124

Head Matter:
[Nos. 61482-2; 61603-5.
En Banc.
June 22, 1995.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Frederick Leslie Gocken, Petitioner. The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mistie B. Crisler, Petitioner.
Joseph Cooney Legal Services, Leslie Loukkola, and Frank A. Malone, for petitioner Gocken.
Eric M. Christianson, for petitioner Crisler.
James R. Sweetser, Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, and Kevin M. Korsmo, Deputy; Steven M. Clem, Prosecuting Attorney for Douglas County, and Frank W. Jenny, Deputy, for respondent.
Katherine S. Knox on behalf of Washington Defender Association, amicus curiae for petitioners.

Opinion:
Guy, J.
The question before the court is whether the double jeopardy clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 9, extends broader individual rights to a criminal defendant than the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, amendment V. We hold it does not.
Background
State v. Gocken
On October 28, 1990, at approximately 2 a.m., Mr. Frederick L. Gocken placed a license plate on a vehicle parked at the Shamrock Car Wash in the city of Spokane. He also handed what appeared to be cash to an unidentified person. Several people observed this transaction and reported their observations to the Spokane Police Department. Mr. Gocken left the car wash, stopping a short distance away when the vehicle he was driving overheated. Mr. Gocken was at the rear of the vehicle when several police officers contacted him regarding the citizens' reports.
The police officers asked Mr. Gocken for his identification and vehicle registration. Mr. Gocken informed the police officers that his identification and a gun were inside the vehicle. The police officers asked Mr. Gocken if they could enter the vehicle and retrieve his identification. Mr. Gocken denied this request.
A police officer standing next to the vehicle observed through the driver's side window a marijuana pipe on the driver's side floorboard. Mr.. Gocken was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of RCW 69.50.412(1). The police officers searched the vehicle incident to the arrest and recovered a handgun, a Tupperware container containing marijuana, a plastic bag containing marijuana, a marijuana grow operation ledger, and cash totaling $1,355. Mr. Gocken was then arrested on a second charge — possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a).
Mr. Gocken pleaded guilty in district court to the misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. Mr. Gocken then filed in Spokane County Superior Court a motion to dismiss the felony possession charge, claiming double jeopardy barred its prosecution. The Superior Court agreed with Mr. Gocken and dismissed the felony possession charge. The Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Gocken, 72 Wn. App. 908, 910, 866 P.2d 694 (1994). We granted Mr. Gocken's petition for review.
State v. Crisler
On December 9, 1991, Ms. Mistie B. Crisler and another woman entered a Lamonts store in the city of East Wenatchee. After some discussion, each woman grabbed an armload of clothing and ran out of the store. Lamonts personnel pursued. Upon chase, both women dropped the merchandise they were carrying. The clothing was eventually collected and counted. The combined value of the stolen merchandise exceeded $250.
Ms. Crisler was charged by the City of East Wenatchee with criminal conspiracy in violation of RCW 9A.28.040(1). On December 10, 1991, Ms. Crisler pleaded guilty in district court to the misdemeanor charge of criminal conspiracy. The court accepted her plea and entered a finding of guilt. Ms. Crisler was not represented by counsel.
On December 11, 1991, one day after her plea of guilty to criminal conspiracy, Ms. Crisler was charged by the County of Douglas with second-degree theft, a felony, in violation of former RCW 9A.56.040. The criminal conspiracy charge and the theft charge arose from the same incident at Lamonts. The East Wenatchee prosecutor continued sentencing on- the conspiracy conviction until the theft charge was resolved.
Ms. Crisler secured legal counsel and proceeded to trial. At trial, the Superior Court gave an accomplice instruction, WPIC 10.51,. based on the testimony that either Ms. Crisler or the other woman was heard to say, "Let's go", immediately prior to fleeing the store. On March 11, 1992, a jury found Ms. Crisler guilty of second-degree theft.
On March 23, 1992, Ms. Crisler moved to dismiss the theft conviction, claiming double jeopardy barred its prosecution. The Superior Court denied the motion.
On April 1, 1992, Ms. Crisler was sentenced for her theft conviction. She received a 15-day jail sentence with credit given for 15 days already served. On April 15, 1992, the East Wenatchee Prosecuting Attorney dismissed the conspiracy conviction.
Ms. Crisler appealed the Superior Court's ruling denying her claim of double jeopardy to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Crisler, 73 Wn. App. 219, 224, 868 P.2d 204 (1994). We granted Ms. Crisler's petition for review and consolidated her case with Mr. Gocken's pursuant to RAP 3.3(b).
Issue
We accepted review to determine whether the double jeopardy clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 9, extends broader individual rights to a criminal defendant than the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, amendment V.
Analysis
I
The double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution guarantees that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". U.S. Const, amend. V. The double jeopardy clause of the Washington State Constitution guarantees that "No person shall . be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense". Const. art. I, § 9. The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707, 89 S. Ct. 2056 (1969).
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment has been construed to encompass three separate constitutional protections:
It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.
(Footnotes omitted.) North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 726, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 2089 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865, 109 S. Ct. 2201 (1989).
The Blockburger Test
In both the multiple punishment and successive prosecution contexts, the Supreme Court has ruled double jeopardy applies if the two offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot survive the "same elements" test. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 568, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993).
The "same elements" test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, examines whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other.
The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.
(Italics ours.) Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 76 L. Ed. 306, 52 S. Ct. 180 (1932); Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 568.
The Blockburger test was the standard for federal double jeopardy analysis for almost 60 years, until the Supreme Court decided Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548, 110 S. Ct. 2084 (1990). In Grady, the Supreme Court ruled a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a two-part test that included the Blockburger test and a "same conduct" test to avoid double jeopardy. The Grady Court outlined the second part of the "same conduct" test when it wrote:
[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause bars any subsequent prosecution in which the government, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.
(Italics ours.) Grady, 495 U.S. at 521. The "same conduct" test announced in Grady was overruled three years later in Dixon.
We have concluded, however, that Grady must be overruled. Unlike Blockburger analysis, whose definition of what prevents two crimes from being the "same offence," US Const, Arndt 5, has deep historical roots and has been accepted in
numerous precedents of this Court, Grady lacks constitutional roots. The "same-conduct" rule it announced is wholly inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law understanding of double jeopardy.
Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 573. The Blockburger test is now the exclusive standard for reviewing whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Gunwall Analysis
Petitioner Gocken contends the double jeopardy clause of Const. art. I, § 9 provides broader constitutional protection to a criminal defendant than the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Gocken requests we adopt and apply the Grady "same conduct" test, not the Blockburger test, when reviewing questions of successive prosecutions under Const. art. I, § 9. Whether the Washington State Constitution provides broader constitutional protection than the United States Constitution is determined by reference to the six nonexclusive factors enumerated in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986). Mr. Gocken properly raised and briefed the six Gunwall factors. See State v. Wethered, 110 Wn.2d 466, 472-73, 755 P.2d 797 (1988).
The first and second Gunwall factors require this court to evaluate the textual language of the state constitution and any significant differences in the texts of parallel provisions of the federal and state constitutions.
Washington courts have consistently held the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment and the double jeopardy clause in Const. art. I, § 9 are virtually identical. State v. Schoel, 54 Wn.2d 388, 391, 341 P.2d 481 (1959) (the federal and state double jeopardy clauses are identi cal in thought, substance and purpose); State v. Larkin, 70 Wn. App. 349, 352-53, 853 P.2d 451 (1993). Washington courts have also consistently held the same interpretation is given to Const, art. I, § 9 as is afforded to the Fifth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Ridgley, 70 Wn.2d 555, 556, 424 P.2d 632 (1967) (Const. art. I, § 9 has been construed to provide protection identical to that provided under the federal constitution); Larkin, 70 Wn. App. at 352-53; State v. Kirk, 64 Wn. App. 788, 790-91, 828 P.2d 1128, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1025 (1992).
The third Gunwall factor requires this court to examine the constitutional and common-law history of Const. art. I, §9.
Mr. Gocken argues Const. art. I, § 9 was based on the Constitution of Oregon and not on the Constitution of the United States. Petition for Review, at 12 (citing Journal of the Washington State Constitutional Convention, 1889, at 498 n.16 (Beverly P. Rosenow ed. 1962)). Mr. Gocken asserts an analysis of Const, art. I, § 9 independent of the Fifth Amendment is therefore mandated. We disagree. In State v. Brunn, 22 Wn.2d 120, 154 P.2d 826, 157 A.L.R. 1049 (1945) this court expressed its opinion as to the origin of Const. art. I, § 9.
Candidly speaking, it is most unlikely that those who drafted our constitution, and the people who adopted it, greatly concerned themselves with the constitutional provision under discussion, or had any clear or fixed idea of its technical meaning. It is more likely that the provision was inserted in Article 1, entitled "Bill of Rights," [sic] because it was in the Federal bill of rights and had been included in the constitutions of practically all of the states that had theretofore entered the Union.
Brunn, 22 Wn.2d at 139. In addition, Mr. Gocken's argument that Const. art. I, § 9 was drafted in accordance with the Oregon Constitution and not in accordance with the United States Constitution overlooks a portion of footnote 16 from the Journal that indicates both the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution were considered before Const. art. I, § 9 was adopted. Journal, at 498 n.16.
Mr. Gocken also argues In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 33 L. Ed. 118, 9 S. Ct. 672 (1889), published only a few months before the adoption of the Washington State Constitution, sets forth a double jeopardy analysis similar to that of the Grady "same conduct" test. The Supreme Court in United States v. Dixon, supra, reviewed In re Nielsen and held the 1889 decision is in accord with the Blockburger test, not the Grady "same conduct" test. Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 573-74.
The fourth Gunwall factor requires this court to examine preexisting state law. An early judicial interpretation of Const. art. I, § 9 occurred in 1896, seven years after the Washington State Constitution was adopted. State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 45 P. 318 (1896). In Reiff, this court ruled a successive prosecution for false pretenses under section 234 of the Penal Code was not barred by the double jeopardy provision of Const, art. I, § 9 after defendant's motion to dismiss a larceny charge under section 53 of the Penal Code was granted.
A mere reference to §53 and 234, supra, is sufficient to show the difference between the character of the offenses there defined. There are elements requisite to each which are not necessary to the other, and proof of the offense charged in either of the informations would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction under the other.
(Italics ours.) Reiff, 14 Wash. at 667. The double jeopardy test articulated in Reiff, sometimes denominated as the "same evidence" test, is basically identical to the Blockburger test. State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 777, 888 P.2d 155 (1995); State v. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 675, 826 P.2d 684 (1992); State v. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d 577, 581-82, 512 P.2d 718 (1973). This test has been applied by Washington courts for nearly 100 years. See Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 581. Moreover, the decision in Reiff, an early interpretation of Const. art. I, § 9, confirms that Const. art. I, § 9 does not provide broader individual rights to criminal defendants than the Fifth Amendment.
The fifth Gunwall factor requires this court to examine any differences in structure between the federal and state constitutions. In State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593 (1994), this court held the fifth Gunwall factor will always point toward pursuing an independent state constitutional analysis because the federal constitution is a grant of power from the states, while the state constitution represents a limitation of the State's power. Young, 123 Wn.2d at 180.
The sixth Gunwall factor requires this court to examine matters of particular state interest or local concern.
The definition of "same offense" in Const. art. I, § 9 affects prosecutions for offenses committed in this state. The need to protect the double jeopardy rights of Washington citizens is correctly a state concern. Mr. Gocken argues the need to have a consistent, understandable, and fair approach to double jeopardy warrants a separate state analysis. As support, Mr. Gocken cites the five-to-four decision in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548, 110 S. Ct. 2084 (1990), and the five-to-four decision in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993).
In Dixon, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court and concluded the Blockburger analysis adequately protects the interests embodied in the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Scalia attacked the Grady "same conduct" test as a source of confusion and instability in lower courts. Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 577; see Kathryn A. Pamenter, Comment, United States v. Dixon: The Supreme Court Returns to the Traditional Standard for Double Jeopardy Clause Analysis, 69 Notre Dame L. Rev. 575, 582 (1994). The difficulty with Grady became apparent in United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 118 L. Ed. 2d 25, 112 S. Ct. 1377 (1992). In Felix, the Supreme Court created an exception to the Grady rule by allowing a subsequent prosecution for conspiracy, despite an earlier charge for the underlying offense. Peter A. Raith, Comment, Criminal Law: Double Trouble or Double Jeopardy—"Same Conduct" (Grady) Test Overruled in Favor of Return to Single 'Same Element" (Blockburger) Test, 33 Washburn L.J. 429, 447 (1994). Justice Scalia argued further the Blockburger test is a source of precedent, while the Grady "same conduct" test is inconsistent with previous court decisions, historically inaccurate, poorly reasoned, and confusing in practice. Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d at 573, 577-78. Four Justices in Dixon disagreed, concluding the Blockburger test does not adequately protect individuals from double jeopardy.
Amicus curiae Washington Defender Association underscores that Washington would not be alone in rejecting the Blockburger test as advanced in Dixon. The Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected Dixon and adopted the Grady "same conduct" test for double jeopardy analysis under the Hawaii Constitution. State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 865 P.2d 150 (1994). But see State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 521-22, 509 N.W.2d 712, cert. denied, 129 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1994) (the Blockburger test, rather than the Grady "same conduct" test, is applied when Wisconsin courts determine whether successive prosecutions are barred by the double jeopardy clause under the Wisconsin Constitution).
Washington case law establishes the Blockburger test adequately protects the citizens of this state from double jeopardy. See, e.g., State v. Hennings, 100 Wn.2d 379, 383, 670 P.2d 256 (1983) (double jeopardy clause protects against a second prosecution after acquittal); State v. Johnson, 48 Wn. App. 531, 535, 740 P.2d 337, review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1011 (1987) (convictions for two robberies in connection with robbing two clerks in one store violated double jeopardy); State v. Kirk, 64 Wn. App. 788, 792, 828 P.2d 1128 (finding of guilt on a lesser included of fense is an acquittal on the greater offense), review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1025 (1992); State v. Potter, 31 Wn. App. 883, 886-88, 645 P.2d 60 (1982) (prosecution for both reckless driving and reckless endangerment barred by double jeopardy). The Blockburger test, with its emphasis on statutory elements, is simple and objective; and it provides courts, defendants, and prosecutors with certainty as to which offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes.
We conclude the Gunwall factors do not support Mr. Gocken's contention that the state double jeopardy clause provides broader protection to criminal defendants than the federal double jeopardy clause. We hold Const, art. I, § 9 is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment. The Blockburger "same elements" test, a test this court has applied in one form or another for nearly 100 years, rather than the Grady "same conduct" test, applies to determine whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause in Const. art. I, § 9.
II
Under a Blockburger analysis, the Court of Appeals properly held there was no double jeopardy violation under Const, art. I, § 9 for prosecuting Mr. Gocken for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver following a plea of guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia.
A person is guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia when: a person uses drug paraphernalia to ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce a controlled substance into the human body. RCW 69.50.412(1). A person is guilty of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver when: with an intent to deliver, a person possesses a controlled substance. RCW 69.50.401(a).
Double jeopardy is avoided under a Blockburger analysis because possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver have separate elements. Possession of drug paraphernalia requires use of drug paraphernalia, while possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver does not. Likewise, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver requires proof of an intent to deliver a controlled substance while possession of drug paraphernalia does not.
Mr. Gocken argues alternatively that under a Blockburger analysis a successive prosecution for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver is barred under Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1054, 97 S. Ct. 2912 (1977). Mr. Gocken's contention is that possession of drug paraphernalia is a lesser included offense to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. We disagree. Neither of these offenses is a lesser included offense of the other. See State v. Williams, 62 Wn. App. 748, 753, 815 P.2d 825 (1991), review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1019 (1992).
Thus, Const. art. I, § 9 does not bar a prosecution for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver subsequent to a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand the case to Spokane County Superior Court.
Ill
Under a Blockburger analysis, the Court of Appeals properly held there was no double jeopardy violation under Const.0 art. I, § 9 for prosecuting Ms. Crisler as an accomplice to theft in the second degree following a plea of guilty to criminal conspiracy.
A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when: with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in the crime, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement. RCW 9A.28.040(1). A person is guilty of accomplice liability when: with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit the crime or aids such other person in planning or committing the crime. RCW 9A.08.020(3).
Double jeopardy is avoided under a Blockburger analysis because criminal conspiracy and accomplice liability have separate elements. Criminal conspiracy requires an element of intent, while accomplice liability requires a lesser culpable state of knowledge. Likewise, accomplice liability requires a completed crime, while criminal conspiracy requires only proof that one of the conspirators took a substantial step toward the commission of the agreed crime, which can consist of mere preparatory conduct. See State v. Toomey, 38 Wn. App. 831, 839-40, 690 P.2d 1175 (1984), review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1012, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985); State v. Dent, 123 Wn.2d 467, 477, 869 P.2d 392 (1994).
Thus, Const, art. I, § 9 does not bar a prosecution for accomplice liability to second-degree theft subsequent to a conviction for criminal conspiracy. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
Conclusion
The double jeopardy clause in Const. art. I, § 9 is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment. The Blockburger "same elements" test, a test this court has applied for nearly 100 years, applies to determine whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause in Const. art. I, § 9. The Court of Appeals' decisions are affirmed.
Durham, C.J., Dolliver and Smith, JJ., and Andersen and Brachtenbach, JJ. Pro Tern., concur.
RCW 69.50.412(1) states in relevant part:
"It is unlawful for any person to use drug paraphernalia to . . . inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance".
RCW 69.50.401(a) states in relevant part:
", . . [IJt is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance".
RCW 9A.28.040(1) states:
"A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he [or she] agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement".
Former RCW 9A.56.040G) states in relevant part:
"A person is guilty of theft in the second degree if he [or she] commits theft of: "(a) Property or services which exceed(s) two hundred and fifty dollars in value, but does not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars in value; . . .".
Petitioner Crisler attempted to raise the six Gunwall factors in a supplemental brief submitted to this court on October 12, 1994. The brief was rejected as untimely pursuant to RAP 13.7(d). Because the issue is properly before the court in the companion case, the Gunwall analysis pertains to both cases.
Const. art. I, § 9 is not identical to the Oregon double jeopardy clause, which provides in relevant part: "No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence". Or. Const. art. I, § 12.