Court Opinion

ID: 9603252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:04:26.066115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:10.014494
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
I dissent. The majority concedes the constitutionality of RCW 9A.88.080 ("promoting prostitution") is wholly dependent upon the constitutionality of RCW 9A.88.030 (defining "prostitution"). The majority points out that the recent case of State v. Zuanich, 92 Wn.2d 61, 593 P.2d 1314 (1979) holds RCW 9A.88.030 meets the constitutional standard requiring adequate prior notice of that conduct which will subject one to criminal penalty.
While that issue was decided in Zuanich it was resolved incorrectly. No useful purpose will be served by repeating the dissent set forth in Zuanich at page 68. However, for the reasons set forth at length therein, I also dissent in this case. In light of the nature of the dissent, all remaining issues in the instant case would become moot.
Utter, C.J., and Hicks, J., concur with Stafford, J.