Opinion ID: 2566323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Uniformity between the States Requires Intent To Be Proved

Text: As part of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the legislature adopted RCW 69.50.603 at the same time as the unlawful possession statute. This section provides that [t]his chapter shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among those states which enact it. RCW 69.50.603. At least 48 states have adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and all but two (Washington and North Dakota) expressly require knowledge to be proved as an element of unlawful possession. Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 646-49 nn. 6-7, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). But the majority dismisses this, claiming our legislature purposely omitted the words knowingly or intentionally from the unlawful possession statute when it adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, thereby eliminating these elements from the crime in Washington. Majority at 1193. Yet while numerous other states did the same, the courts of those states continued to interpret the same unlawful possession statute to require intent. Dawkins, 313 Md. at 647-49, 547 A.2d 1041 (Maryland being one such state). Alabama courts, for example, have construed their unlawful possession statute [1] to include a mens rea element, McDaniel v. State, 589 So.2d 767, 769 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); see also Walker v. State, 356 So.2d 672 (Ala.1977), considering, among other factors, the seriousness of the penalty, Walker, 356 So.2d at 673. As in Washington, [2] in Alabama unlawful possession of a controlled substance is a class C felony punishable by lengthy prison terms or heavy fines or both. [3] These punishments are severe, and most states have recognized a person should not be punished so harshly for an unintended violation of this law. Similarly, California courts have construed their unlawful possession statute to include a mens rea element. People v. Camp, 104 Cal.App.3d 244, 247-48, 163 Cal.Rptr. 510 (The elements of the crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, such as PCP [phencyclidine], are dominion and control of the substance in a quantity usable for consumption or sale, with knowledge of its presence and of its restricted dangerous drug character. (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 960, 101 S.Ct. 373, 66 L.Ed.2d 227 (1980). In Camp the statute in question classified unlawful possession as a misdemeanor, [4] but the court still required intent to be proved. [5] In light of these more recent developments, Cleppe s conclusion that mens rea is unnecessary under our unlawful possession statute is untenable because RCW 69.50.603 requires uniformity of interpretation with other states, and almost all have required intent to be proved under language very similar to Washington's. While we should not lightly overrule a precedent that is 23 years old, neither should we hesitate to correct an error that can lead to devastating convictions of the innocent. Stare decisis is a doctrine developed by courts to accomplish the requisite element of stability in court-made law, but is not an absolute impediment to change. In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wash.2d 649, 653, 466 P.2d 508 (1970). A case should be overruled upon a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful. Id. The Cleppe rule meets this standard because it is out of step with national authority in the context of a uniform statute. The facts now before the court illustrate the harmfulness of this ruletwo people convicted of possessing marijuana of which they were never proved to be aware. Washington is nearly alone in its interpretation of the unlawful possession statute; this can scarcely be called a uniform interpretation, and it violates RCW 69.50.603.