Court Opinion

ID: 9855476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:25:42.382258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:47.996049
License: Public Domain

Durham, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the decision of the majority. I agree that appellant's right, guaranteed by the Washington Constitution to not be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, was not violated in this case. I also agree that we need not decide in this case if the Washington Constitution provides more protection from double jeopardy than does the United States Constitution.
Like most states, Washington throughout its history has had a constitutional ban against placing anyone twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Unlike Oregon, whose constitutional guaranty has in the past been given independent interpretation with results that might not correspond with those in other states or in federal law, State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983), the question of whether our state constitution provides more protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution remains open. I feel compelled to emphasize that we do not decide that question in this case. Thus, the majority's lengthy discussion of the Oregon analysis as it compares to the federal analysis is dicta. To the extent that the majority implies that this court will adopt the Oregon analysis at its next opportunity, I hasten to point out that this implication *288arises from dicta which is not to be relied upon as precedent for future cases.
Brachtenbach and Andersen, JJ., concur with Durham, J.