Opinion ID: 2514211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Renewed Challenge to State v. Clark, 129 Wash.2d 805, 920 P.2d 187 (1996) (Clark I)

Text: Clark argues that, contrary to our holding in State v. Clark, 129 Wash.2d 805, 920 P.2d 187 (1996) ( Clark I), the prosecution should not have been entitled to seek the death penalty due to the defective service of the state's notice of intent to seek the death penalty pursuant to RCW 10.95.040. This court rejected that argument, finding that Clark's trial counsel actually received notice of the intent to seek the death penalty within the statutory period for filing the notice. Clark I, 129 Wash.2d at 809, 920 P.2d 187. Looking to the requirements of CR 5 for instruction, we held that the statutory service under RCW 10.95.040 was timely served and filed. Clark I, 129 Wash.2d at 815-16, 920 P.2d 187. Clark invites us to revisit that holding essentially because, in his estimation, the court incorrectly applied the requirements of CR 5. However, the law of the case doctrine prevents Clark from seeking further reconsideration of our decision. As we have recognized before: Where there has been a determination of the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine ordinarily precludes redeciding the same legal issues in a subsequent appeal. It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause. The Supreme Court is bound by its decision on the first appeal until such time as it might be authoritatively overruled. Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 256, 263, 759 P.2d 1196 (1988) (quoting Adamson v. Traylor, 66 Wash.2d 338, 339, 402 P.2d 499 (1965)). Subsequent appellate reconsideration of an identical legal issue will be granted only where the holding of the prior appeal is clearly erroneous and the application of the doctrine would result in manifest injustice. Folsom, 111 Wash.2d at 264, 759 P.2d 1196 (citing Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wash.2d 1, 10, 402 P.2d 356, 414 P.2d 1013 (1965)). The court's unanimous ruling in Clark I is not clearly erroneous. Clark presents no new theory as to our purported error, and we cannot find one. While Clark argues that allowing the death penalty to remain intact in light of this issue is a manifest injustice, we noted in Clark I that [i]t is not disputed the notice was received by counsel for Clark within the statutory period. Clark I, 129 Wash.2d at 809, 920 P.2d 187. Clark had both actual and timely notice of the state's intent to seek the death penalty.