Court Opinion

ID: 9603344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:05:13.281245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:10.891599
License: Public Domain

Pearson, C.J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority's result and with the rationale that although a statute (so long as it does not involve First Amendment rights) may be potentially vague as to some conduct, it nevertheless may be constitutionally applied to one whose acts clearly fall within the statute's "hard core". See, e.g., State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 676 P.2d 996 (1984); State v. Zuanich, 92 Wn.2d 61, 593 P.2d 1314 (1979). However, I write separately to make clear that I continue to adhere to my concurrence in Justice Utter's dissent in State v. Smith, 111 Wn.2d 1, 759 P.2d 372 (1988).