Opinion ID: 1119446
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt or Preponderance

Text: The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offense charged. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 13, 904 P.2d 754 (1995). However, under the SRA, facts regarding prior convictions used to determine a penalty [15] need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 9.94A.110. We have held that this statute does not violate due process. Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 185-86, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796; see also State v. Jones, 110 Wash.2d 74, 77, 750 P.2d 620 (1988). Federal cases indicate the preponderance standard does not violate the federal constitution. E.g., Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992); McGatha, 891 F.2d at 1526-27. Since it is constitutional to use a preponderance standard to determine the existence of prior crimes in order to determine the length of a sentence under the SRA, Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 185-86, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796, we conclude the preponderance standard is also sufficient to determine the existence of prior offenses for purposes of the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. Affirmed. DURHAM, C.J., and DOLLIVER, SMITH, ALEXANDER and TALMADGE, JJ., concur.