Court Opinion

ID: 9529560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:52:00.413285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:50.711233
License: Public Domain

Worswick, C.J.
(concurring)—I concur fully with and have signed the majority opinion. I add these words because of the dissent.
I would have difficulty finding the error here harmless even under the State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 683 P.2d 173 (1984) standard. More importantly, however, I believe that my dissenting colleague's concern as to the binding effect of Petrich is misplaced.
We are bound by our Supreme Court's decisions announcing Washington law and interpreting the Washing*240ton Constitution. However, decisions of the United States Supreme Court control us in deciding federal constitutional issues.
Our State Supreme Court has explicitly recognized its lack of authority in federal constitutional matters. See National Can Corp. v. Department of Rev., 105 Wn.2d 327, 715 P.2d 128 (1986); Association of Wash. Stevedoring Cos. v. Department of Rev., 88 Wn.2d 315, 559 P.2d 997 (1977), rev'd, 435 U.S. 734 (1978); Tricon, Inc. v. King Cy., 60 Wn.2d 392, 374 P.2d 174, appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 908 (1962). In the face of this, it is illogical to suggest that we are bound to follow a mistaken application of federal constitutional principles by our Supreme Court.