Court Opinion

ID: 9599716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:20:57.905135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:46.571174
License: Public Domain

Scholfield, A.C.J.
(concurring)—I have signed the majority opinion but believe additional comments are appropriate. In State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 584 P.2d 382 (1978), the court did not adhere strictly to the 2-prong test for a lesser included offense. It held an offense to be a lesser included offense, the elements of which were not necessary elements of the greater offense. The opinion in Workman introduced confusion and uncertainty into the subject of lesser included offenses because, while not following strictly the established rule, the court did not expressly recognize that it was adopting a different rule. In State v. Roybal, 82 Wn.2d 577, 512 P.2d 718 (1973), the pre-Workman rule was succinctly stated at page 583 as follows:
A lesser included offense exists when all of the elements of the lesser offense are necessary elements of the greater offense. State v. Bishop, 6 Wn. App. 146, 491 P.2d 1359 (1971). Put another way, if it is possible to commit the greater offense without having committed the lesser offense, the latter is not an included crime.
The failure of Workman to strictly apply this rule leaves litigants and trial courts understandably uncertain as to what is or is not a lesser included offense. It will be very *275helpful to have the rule clarified at the earliest opportunity.
Review denied by Supreme Court October 4,1985.