Opinion ID: 1160985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defining Criminal Prosecution

Text: Criminal prosecution is not defined in the statute. Black's defines prosecution as [a] criminal action; a proceeding instituted and carried on by due course of law, before a competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with crime. Black's Law Dictionary 1221 (6th ed.1990). [2] The meaning of criminal prosecution must further be determined from the statutory context in which it is used. RCW 10.43.040 is a double jeopardy statute and criminal prosecution is used therein to mean a proceeding sufficient to constitute jeopardy under double jeopardy jurisprudence. An understanding of RCW 10.43.040 requires brief discussion of dual sovereignty. Pursuant to the doctrine of dual sovereignty neither constitutional double jeopardy clause [3] is offended by successive punishments at the hands of separate sovereigns so long as each sovereign punishes the defendant but once. See State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 P. 450 (1915) (citing State v. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 42 P. 127 (1895)); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 136-38, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). However, states may override the doctrine by either state constitution or statute by providing they will not prosecute a defendant who has already been prosecuted for the same offense elsewhere. Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d at 512, 664 P.2d 466; Annotation, Conviction or acquittal in federal court as bar to prosecution in state courts for state offense based on same factsmodern view, 6 A.L.R.4th 802, 816-24 (1981). Our statute abrogates dual sovereignty in this jurisdiction. Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d at 511, 664 P.2d 466. In 1909 our Legislature replaced the doctrine of dual sovereignty by statutorily extending double jeopardy protection to prohibit prosecutions of a defendant who has already been prosecuted for the same offense elsewhere by a separate sovereign. Laws of 1909, ch. 249, § 20 (codified at RCW 10.43.040). Thereafter we have repeatedly characterized this statute as a guard against double jeopardy by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d at 511, 664 P.2d 466 (Washington rejected the dual sovereignty doctrine ... by statute.) (construing RCW 10.43.040); State v. Rudy, 105 Wash.2d 921, 924, 719 P.2d 550 (1986) (RCW 10.43.040 provides greater protection against double jeopardy.); State v. Duncan, 111 Wash.2d 859, 868, 765 P.2d 1300 (1989) RCW 10.43.040 is statutory protection against double jeopardy in multiple jurisdictions.); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wash.2d 802, 814, 792 P.2d 506 (1990) (citations omitted) (RCW 10.43.040 provides statutory double jeopardy protection); State v. Mathers, 77 Wash. App. 487, 489-90, 891 P.2d 738 (This state, however, provides greater protection against double jeopardy by statute.) (citing RCW 10.43.040), review denied, 128 Wash.2d 1002, 907 P.2d 297 (1995). In the leading case of Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d at 512-13, 664 P.2d 466, this court unanimously recognized RCW 10.43.040 statutorily extends double jeopardy protection to bar Washington prosecutions which follow prosecutions by other sovereigns. The issue in Caliguri was whether the Washington prosecution for conspiracy to commit arson was for the same act or omission under RCW 10.43.040 as a prior federal prosecution for racketeering based on similar acts. Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d at 512, 664 P.2d 466. Acknowledging the phrase act or omission is undefined in the statute, we noted the statute pertains to double jeopardy and turned to double jeopardy jurisprudence to define the term. Id. at 512-14, 664 P.2d 466. We should do the same today. Turning back to RCW 10.43.040 the text provides Washington will not criminally prosecute if a defendant has already been criminally prosecuted elsewhere for the same offense. Because RCW 10.43.040 simply extends double jeopardy protections we read it to mean Washington will not place a defendant in jeopardy if he has already been placed in jeopardy elsewhere. Criminal prosecution therefore means a proceeding sufficient to invoke jeopardy under double jeopardy jurisprudence. Referencing double jeopardy jurisprudence, we note the clause prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Catlett, 133 Wash.2d 355, 362, 945 P.2d 700 (1997) (citations omitted). Thus the double jeopardy aspect of our statute focuses on whether the prior proceeding amounts to punishment. Meshing the dictionary definition of criminal prosecution with its double jeopardy basis we understand criminal prosecution to include a proceeding instituted under the rules of law to determine the guilt or innocence of a person accused of committing a criminal act where such proceeding threatens punishment under double jeopardy jurisprudence. We then test nonjudicial punishment by this standard to see if it is a criminal prosecution.