Opinion ID: 1355714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: stare decisis requires us to adhere to dowling

Text: The rule of stare decisis requires us to stand by our decisions unless there are compelling reasons why we should not do so. For example, in State v. Stevick, 23 Wn.2d 420, 161 P.2d 181 (1945) and State v. McDaniels, 30 Wn.2d 76, 190 P.2d 705 (1948), we held that proof of ordinary negligence would suffice to support a conviction for negligent homicide. We were persuaded in State v. Partridge, 47 Wn.2d 640, 289 P.2d 702 (1955), however, that the Legislature clearly meant to require a showing of recklessness as an element of that crime. We stated: We hesitate to overrule cases which have been in the books for some length of time, yet when we are confronted with a problem and are convinced that we have been wrong, it is our duty to do so. 47 Wn.2d at 645. The cases overruled in Partridge were clearly wrong and were shown to be so in a carefully reasoned opinion. Here, in contrast, there has been no showing that our prior decision is clearly wrong. As demonstrated below, the majority supports its conclusion only by grossly overstating the difficulties associated with applying Dowling. Nor has there been any showing that subsequent cases have exposed weaknesses or inconsistencies in Dowling. In this regard the case can be contrasted with United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 43 L.Ed.2d 250, 95 S.Ct. 1006 (1975). In Jenkins, the Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause prevented the government from appealing a dismissal of criminal charges even if granted at the defendant's motion on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence. Subsequent to Jenkins, however, the Court held in several cases that the clause did not bar retrial or appeal where dismissal had been obtained on a variety of grounds short of mistrial. See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed.2d 80, 97 S.Ct. 2141 (1977); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 43 L.Ed.2d 265, 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). Therefore, within a few years the Supreme Court overruled Jenkins because these subsequent cases demonstrated that its rule was not sound. United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95, 101, 57 L.Ed.2d 65, 98 S.Ct. 2187 (1978). There has been no such showing here. On the contrary, we have relied on Dowling at least once with no difficulties and without expressing reservations. State v. LeFever, 102 Wn.2d 777, 690 P.2d 574 (1984).