Court Opinion

ID: 9852903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:38:40.932636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:36.996048
License: Public Domain

*113Johnson, J.
(dissenting) — In State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 688 P.2d 136 (1984), a case analytically similar to the cases we decide today, this court refused to follow the shifting sands of federal jurisprudence when interpreting Const. art. I, § 7, instead maintaining a strong commitment to independent state constitutional analysis. I refuse to subscribe to the notion the majority proposes— that our constitution should be interpreted no differently from the federal constitution. This notion ignores our history of state constitutional jurisprudence. I therefore dissent.
In this case the majority effectively wipes out almost 100 years of this court’s double jeopardy jurisprudence and eviscerates most, if not all, double jeopardy protections. The majority concludes state constitutional double jeopardy protection is no broader than federal constitutional double jeopardy protection. By resting the meaning and effect of our state constitution’s double jeopardy protection on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993), the majority unnecessarily and unwisely retreats from our recent decision in State v. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 826 P.2d 684 (1992), in which we held unanimously that the "same conduct” test of Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548, 110 S. Ct. 2084 (1990) is necessary to ensure double jeopardy protection in the context of successive prosecutions. Laviollette is consistent with the history of Const. art. I, § 9 and should not be abandoned. Prior reliance on federal cases does not preclude us from taking a more expansive view of article I, section 9 where the United States Supreme Court limits federal guaranties in a manner inconsistent with our prior pronouncements. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d at 439.
We should not deny double jeopardy protection in unwarranted reliance on Dixon. To do so effectively abolishes the courts’ power to enforce constitutional double jeopardy protection by granting the Legislature and *114prosecutors the power to determine whether two offenses are the same. I would hold the test adopted in Laviollette is necessary, in the context of successive prosecutions, to protect the core interests which historically have animated double jeopardy protection under article I, section 9 of the Washington State Constitution.
In support of its decision to adopt the federal "same elements” test, the majority asserts Const. art. I, § 9 traditionally has been given the same interpretation as the analogous provision in the Fifth Amendment. Majority, at 102. This assertion is misleading and ignores most of the history of both federal and Washington State double jeopardy jurisprudence. The federal "same elements” test was announced by the Supreme Court in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342, 55 L. Ed. 489, 31 S. Ct. 421 (1911), in a case involving successive prosecutions, and in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 76 L. Ed. 306, 52 S. Ct. 180 (1932), in a case involving multiple punishments prosecuted in a single proceeding.
In contrast, this court’s interpretation of article I, section 9 was in place before either Gavieres or Blockburger was announced and has developed parallel to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, not in reliance on it.7 That our interpretation has been the same as or similar to Federal Fifth Amendment jurisprudence is a result of this court’s reliance on the common law and on the history of double jeopardy in Anglo-American criminal law to define the "same offense” for double jeopardy purposes. Therefore, unless we now intentionally decide to proceed in lockstep with federal double jeopardy analysis, Dixon is of no consequence to this court’s interpretation of article I, section 9.
The majority’s Gunwall analysis is flawed, especially in *115its treatment of the fourth Gunwall factor, the examination of preexisting state law. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986). The earliest Washington case interpreting Const, art. I, § 9 is State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 45 P. 318 (1896). The defendant was tried and acquitted for larceny of a lady’s beaver shoulder cape. Subsequently, he was charged with obtaining the cape under false pretenses and he pleaded "former acquittal” as a bar to the second prosecution. This court rejected the defendant’s argument that article I, section 9 barred a second prosecution based on the transaction set out in the former prosecution:
There are elements requisite to each [offense] which are not necessary to the other, and proof of the offense charged in either of the informations would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction under the other. To sustain the plea, the offenses must be identical both in fact and in law.
"The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.”
Reiff, 14 Wash. at 667-68 (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)).
We consistently followed Reiff over the next several decades, although our application focused almost exclusively on whether one offense was a lesser included offense within the other. See, e.g., State v. Campbell, 40 Wash. 480, 82 P. 752 (1905); State v. Elliott, 69 Wash. 62, 124 P. 212 (1912); State v. Peck, 146 Wash. 101, 261 P. 779 (1927); State v. Kingsbury, 147 Wash. 426, 266 P. 174 (1928); State v. Phillips, 179 Wash. 607, 38 P.2d 372 (1934); State v. Barton, 5 Wn.2d 234, 105 P.2d 63 (1940); In re Huffman, 34 Wn.2d 914, 210 P.2d 805 (1949); State v. La Porte, 58 Wn.2d 816, 365 P.2d 24 (1961).
In State v. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d 577, 512 P.2d 718 (1973), we distinguished two types of tests developed to define "same offense” in double jeopardy analysis. Under the *116"same transaction” test, the offenses are the same if they "grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction”, regardless of the similarity of the offenses. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 581 (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453, 25 L. Ed. 2d 469, 90 S. Ct. 1189 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). The "same evidence” test, which compares the evidence and the law, generally appears in one of three versions:
Required evidence tests hold that offenses are "the same” if the elements of one are sufficiently similar to the elements of another. Alleged evidence tests find offenses the same if there is sufficient similarity between the allegations of the two indictments. Actual evidence tests find the offenses the same if there is a similarity between the evidence presented at the two trials.
Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 580-81 (citing Notes & Comments, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.J. 262, 269-70 (1965)). We characterized Reiff and its progeny as having adopted the "required evidence” test: "the collective thrust of our prior decisions has been to look at the required evidence necessary to sustain each charge”. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 582. Accord State v. Morlock, 87 Wn.2d 767, 771, 557 P.2d 1315 (1976). Roybal relied solely on Washington cases and did not cite either Gavieres or Blockburger. Our subsequent cases have relied on Roybal for the proposition that no double jeopardy exists unless the evidence required to support a conviction on one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction on the other. See, e.g., State v. Claborn, 95 Wn.2d 629, 628 P.2d 467 (1981); State v. Johnson, 96 Wn.2d 926, 639 P.2d 1332 (1982); State v. Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d 413, 662 P.2d 853 (1983); State v. Caliguri, 99 Wn.2d 501, 664 P.2d 466 (1983).
The Roybal test has been interpreted as involving two components: (1) the two offenses must be factually the same, so that proof of one offense necessarily would also prove the other; and (2) each offense, as charged, must include an element not included in the other. In re Fletcher, 113 Wn.2d 42, 47-49, 776 P.2d 114 (1989). It is *117not readily apparent how a court may determine offenses are not factually the same, independent of a determination the offenses contain different elements, unless the defendant’s conduct is examined. The Fletcher court cited two examples, both of which involved sequential criminal conduct, and concluded Fletcher’s first offenses (robbery and kidnapping) were completed before the later one (assault) began, so that "different evidence would be used to prove the assault than would be used to prove the earlier crimes”. Fletcher, 113 Wn.2d at 49. Nothing in Fletcher suggests how to evaluate whether simultaneous or temporally overlapping offenses are factually the same under Roybal and Vladovic. If such an evaluation cannot be done, the two-part test collapses into only a comparison of the elements of the offenses charged, which fails to give meaning to our longstanding requirement that the offenses must be "identical both in fact and in law” to sustain a plea of former jeopardy. Reiff, 14 Wash. at 667; State ex rel. Foley v. Yuse, 191 Wash. 1, 3, 70 P.2d 797 (1937); Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 581. The only clear way to do such an evaluation is to consider whether the offenses charged are based on the same conduct.
The United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of considering the conduct on which the charged offenses are based when it raised the threshold double jeopardy protection by adding a second step to double jeopardy analysis in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548, 110 S. Ct. 2084 (1990). The first step was the traditional Blockburger test to determine whether one offense is a lesser included offense of the other; the second step was a determination whether the State, "to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted”. Grady, 495 U.S. at 521. We applied the two-part Grady test in Laviollette, finding the second step of the test necessary to ensure adequate double jeopardy protection in the context of successive prosecutions. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d at 676.
Grady was overruled by Dixon, in a five-to-four decision *118purporting to reinstate the traditional Blockburger test. Laviollette's discussion of the Blockburger test is instructive to distinguish the analysis under article I, section 9, as developed by this court, from the Blockburger analysis, thereby showing why Dixon does not control our interpretation of article I, section 9:
The United States Supreme Court has stated that [the double jeopardy clause] embodies three protections: "It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” (Footnotes omitted.) North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072 (1969). For purposes of double jeopardy, perhaps one of the most vexing issues has been to determine what "the same offense” means ....
In determining what the "same offense” is for double jeopardy purposes, this court has applied a test that was basically identical to the Blockburger test. State v. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d 577, 512 P.2d 718 (1973). Although denominated a "same evidence” test, the court’s analysis in Roybal indicates that it focused primarily on whether or not each offense contained "an additional element not included in the other.” Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 582.
The Blockburger test, however, was developed in the context of double jeopardy challenges to multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution. In several decisions that preceded Grady, it was apparent that the Blockburger test was not the exclusive means of determining whether multiple prosecutions violated double jeopardy. See, e.g., Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 65 L. Ed. 2d 228, 100 S. Ct. 2260 (1980); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. [161,] 166 n.6 [53 L. Ed. 2d 187, 97 S. Ct. 2221 (1977)]. The Court in Grady described how multiple prosecutions raise more serious concerns than multiple punishments imposed in a single proceeding. For example, multiple prosecutions allow the State, with its greater resources, to subject a defendant to the expense and ordeal of multiple trials. Grady, 495 U.S. at 518. Moreover, allowing the State to proceed in successive trials gives it the opportunity to hone its trial strategies and perfect its evidence. Grady, 495 U.S. at 518.
*119Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d at 674-76. Three points we made in Laviollette are significant: (1) the Roybal test, derived from the Reiff test, was developed independently of federal pronouncements, including Blockburger; (2) Blockburger was developed in the context of a single prosecution imposing multiple punishments, not that of multiple prosecutions for the same offense; and (3) serious additional concerns, not present in a single prosecution involving multiple punishments, are raised in the context of multiple prosecutions and these additional concerns are not addressed in the Blockburger test.
Much of Justice Scalia’s legal analysis in Dixon was a debate with Justice Souter over whether the Blockburger test or the Grady test better articulated the Court’s double jeopardy jurisprudence. One commentator suggests this historical debate is futile because it fails to address fundamental changes in the nature of criminal prosecutions that have occurred over the last two centuries:
Under English and early American common law, the number of offenses for which a defendant could be charged was extremely limited, and the offenses were broad in scope. Today, however, there are countless offenses distinguishable only by fine nuances. Therefore, a modern prosecutor could prosecute a defendant repeatedly simply by making minor alterations to the criminal charges each time. Moreover, at common law the conviction rate was extremely high and most convicted felons were either deported or executed. Thus, defendants were rarely prosecuted twice for the same offense.
Additionally, the power of the prosecutor has changed over time. At common law, the prosecutor was restrained by very formalistic procedural rules. For instance, if there was any disparity between the facts set forth in the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, the case was dismissed. The prosecutor also was not allowed to amend the indictment. The purpose of these rules was to prevent "arbitrary multiplications of offenses and extension of the criminal law.” Today, these formalities are gone, and prosecutors are given broad discretion in prosecuting defendants. Consequently, the Double Jeopardy Clause has great significance in today’s society because it is one of the only limitations on the prosecutor’s power. Because the definitional structure of crimes and the *120power of the prosecutor has changed over time, any definition of when two offenses are the same that comports with historical interpretations of the Clause will not adequately protect defendants from double jeopardy in the modern criminal justice system.
(Footnotes omitted.) Kirstin Pace, Fifth Amendment—The Adoption of the "Same Elements” Test: The Supreme Court’s Failure To Adequately Protect Defendants From Double Jeopardy, 84 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 769, 795-96 (1994). Pace persuasively argues the focus of inquiry properly should be on the interests double jeopardy is intended to protect. Applying this focus, it is clear the Blockburger "same elements” test, in the context of multiple prosecutions, does not adequately protect the interests underlying Const, art. I, § 9, so that Dixon neither overrules Laviollette nor mandates that this court adopt the Blockburger test.
We have unambiguously and repeatedly identified the core interest our double jeopardy clause was intended to protect:
"The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.”
State v. Schoel, 54 Wn.2d 388, 391, 341 P.2d 481 (1959) (quoting Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199, 78 S. Ct. 221, 61 A.L.R.2d 1119 (1957)); Roybal, 82 Wn.2d at 579 (quoting Green); Caliguri, 99 Wn.2d at 510 (quoting Green).
By blindly following Dixon, the majority fails to protect against vexatious multiple prosecutions. Dixon’s inflexible application of the same elements test abrogates double jeopardy protection in two key ways: (1) it places ultimate *121control of double jeopardy protection in the hands of the Legislature, which can allow repeated prosecution of a defendant for the same conduct simply by manipulating the definitions of statutory offenses; and (2) it ignores the serious concerns raised in multiple prosecutions, especially that allowing the State to attempt repeatedly to convict a defendant subjects that person to unwarranted expense and ordeal and gives prosecutors an opportunity to perfect their trial strategies and presentation of evidence, thus increasing the risk of an erroneous conviction. See Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d at 675-76. See also Grady, 495 U.S. at 520 (if only the Blockburger test were used to determine "same offense”, the defendant in Grady could be tried four separate times for one criminal act).
By relying solely on a rigid and mechanical examination of the elements of the offenses charged, the majority effectively abolishes the ability of our courts to enforce our constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy. Dixon notwithstanding, this court should not abdicate its obligation to ensure all citizens receive the fundamental protections guaranteed under our state constitution. To ensure double jeopardy protection against multiple prosecutions for the same offense, I merely would follow the two-part test applied in Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d at 676: (1) determine whether the offenses have identical statutory elements or one is a lesser included offense of the other; and (2) determine whether the government, to establish an essential element of the offense charged in a subsequent prosecution, will prove conduct constituting an offense for which the defendant already has been prosecuted.
Applying Laviollette’s two-part test, I would affirm the conviction in State v. Gocken, 72 Wn. App. 908, 866 P.2d 694 (1994) and reverse the theft conviction in State v. Crisler, 73 Wn. App. 219, 868 P.2d 204 (1994).
State v. Gocken
On October 28, 1990, a Spokane police officer arrested *122Mr. Gocken for possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of RCW 69.50.412(1). The police then searched the car and arrested Mr. Gocken for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a). He was charged with possession with intent to deliver on January 14, 1991, well before he pleaded guilty on May 9, 1991, to drug paraphernalia use.
The first inquiry under Laviollette is whether one offense is a lesser included offense of the other, or whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other. RCW 69.50.412(1) contains the following elements: (1) use of drug paraphernalia (as defined in RCW 69.50.102), (2) to ”inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body”, (3) a controlled substance. (Italics mine.) As applied here, RCW 69.50.401(a) contains the following elements: (1) possession, (2) of a controlled substance, (3) with intent to deliver (which may be inferred from the quantity of marijuana possessed). The emphasized elements are not present in both offenses; thus, the first inquiry suggests these are different offenses.
The second inquiry under Laviollette is whether, to establish an essential element of the offense charged in a subsequent prosecution the State will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been charged. The conduct common to the two offenses is Mr. Gocken’s possession of marijuana — absent some linkage to marijuana, such as residue in the so-called "marijuana pipe” found in Mr. Gocken’s car or simultaneous possession of marijuana, Mr. Gocken’s pipe could not be identified as drug paraphernalia; possession provides that linkage. However, mere possession will prove neither offense for which Mr. Gocken was charged. Under RCW 69.50.412(1), the State must prove use of the pipe to inhale marijuana; under RCW 69.50.401(a), the State also must prove intent to deliver.
There was no double jeopardy under Laviollette. Mr. Gocken was charged with two separate offenses arising from the same transaction, but not from the same conduct.
*123State v. Crisler
Ms. Crisler was charged with criminal conspiracy under RCW 9A.28.040(1), to which she pleaded guilty in Douglas County District Court on December 10, 1991. The court accepted the plea and entered a finding of guilt, but continued sentencing. On December 11, 1991, Ms. Crisler was charged in Douglas County Superior Court with theft in the second degree, in violation of former RCW 9A.56.040. In the trial for second-degree theft, the jury was instructed on the elements of second-degree theft and on accomplice liability; the jury returned a guilty verdict on March 11, 1992.
RCW 9A.28.040(1) contains the following elements: (1) agreement with one or more persons, (2) to engage in or cause criminal conduct, (3) with intent to engage in or cause such conduct, and (4) any such person takes a substantial step in pursuing the agreement. Former RCW 9A.56.040 contains the following elements: (1) theft, (2) of property or services, (3) valued at more than $250 but not more than $1,500. Accomplice liability, as defined in WPIC 10.51 and as read to the jury, contains the following elements: (1) agreement to aid another person (2) in planning or committing a crime, (3) with knowledge it will promote or facilitate the commission of a crime.
Using these definitions, accomplice liability is a lesser included offense to criminal conspiracy. The intent element of conspiracy encompasses the knowledge element of accomplice liability, and both offenses require only an agreement with another person to plan or commit a crime. As defined for the jury, conspiracy requires a substantial step, while accomplice liability does not — that is the only material difference in the offenses. The majority’s conclusion to the contrary is not supported by the cases cited. See majority, at 109.8
As the Crisler trial court defined accomplice liability, it *124contains no element not also contained in conspiracy, making accomplice liability a lesser included offense of conspiracy. Therefore, under either Laviollette or Dixon, Ms. Crisler was placed in double jeopardy when charged with and convicted of accomplice liability after pleading guilty to conspiracy and having her plea accepted by the court.
Utter, J. Pro Tern., concurs with Johnson, J.

This court’s only case specifically applying the Blockburger test is State v. Maxfield, 125 Wn.2d 378, 886 P.2d 123 (1994), which involved multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution. Apart from a tangential reference to Blockburger in State v. Swindell, 93 Wn.2d 192, 195, 607 P.2d 852 (1980), we have never applied either Gavieres or Blockburger in the context of multiple prosecutions.

State v. Dent, 123 Wn.2d 467, 477, 869 P.2d 392 (1994) did not address accomplice liability. State v. Toomey, 38 Wn. App. 831, 839-40, 690 P.2d 1175 (1984), review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1012, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985) does not *124state the proposition for which the majority cites it (that accomplice liability requires a completed crime while conspiracy liability requires only a substantial step).