Court Opinion

ID: 9603657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:08:39.370994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:46.050733
License: Public Domain

Andersen, C.J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result of the majority opinion. I write separately to note that the *779majority opinion, while ostensibly declining to engage in state constitutional analysis, appears in several places to do so. As the majority opinion notes, the parties have not addressed the factors enunciated in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986). Majority opinion, at 764. Under well-established precedent of this court, we will not engage in a state constitutional analysis when the party invoking the Washington State Constitution has failed to brief the Gunwall factors. E.g., Collier v. Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737, 763-66, 854 P.2d 1046 (1993) (Durham, J., concurring); State v. Wethered, 110 Wn.2d 466, 472-73, 755 P.2d 797 (1988); State v. Rodriquez, 65 Wn. App. 409, 414 n.1, 828 P.2d 636, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1019 (1992). I, therefore, do not agree with any state constitutional discussion in the majority opinion. See, e.g., majority opinion at 750-60 n.28, 764, 774-75.
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Andersen, C.J.
Reconsideration denied May 24, 1994.