Court Opinion

ID: 9578804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:48:38.419249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:30.355680
License: Public Domain

Hicks, J.
(concurring) — While I concur with the opinion of the majority, I believe there is a further reason requiring reversal of the Court of Appeals. State v. Rhinehart, 21 Wn. App. 708, 586 P.2d 124 (1978), was decided by a divided court. In dissenting, Dore, J., raised the matter of double jeopardy if the trial court was reversed. I am convinced that the dissenting judge was correct on this issue.
*929When a trial court dismisses a criminal case for insufficient evidence at the close of the State's case, no matter how erroneous that ruling may be, retrial of the defendant is precluded by the rule that one may not be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 91, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65, 98 S. Ct. 2187 (1978); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 63-64, 57 L. Ed. 2d 43, 98 S. Ct. 2170 (1978). Consequently, in addition to the rationale advanced by the majority, I am of the opinion that the reasons stated by the dissenting judge in Rhine-hart at pages 717-19 on the issue of double jeopardy should be recognized by this court as a further basis for reversing the Court of Appeals and affirming the trial court.
Wright and Williams, JJ., and Hunter, J. Pro Tern., concur with Hicks, J.