Court Opinion

ID: 9530174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:57.691482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:01.142311
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.
(dissenting) — The information charging Steven Hopper with second degree assault failed to expressly state he "knowingly" assaulted another person. Despite the omission of this essential element, the majority finds the information sufficient by applying principles stated in State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 812 P.2d 86 (1991), which held a charging document that fails to include a nonstatutory element will be liberally construed when its sufficiency is challenged for the first time on appeal.
I disagree with the majority that resolution of this case is controlled by Kjorsvik. While Kjorsvik involved an information lacking a nonstatutory element, the information in this case lacked a statutory element. As this court recently and unanimously held in State v. Holt, 104 Wn.2d 315, 321-22, 704 P.2d 1189 (1985), a missing statutory element amounts to a constitutional violation requiring dismissal of the charges. Holt was neither modified nor overruled in Kjorsvik and is still controlling law in this case. By applying Kjorsvik rather than Holt, the majority rewards inexcusably lax practices in failing to include statutory elements and *161thereby ensures continued, unnecessary litigation and delay in our criminal processes.
Even if I accepted the majority's conclusion that Kjorsvik applies to this case, however, I would still disagree with the majority's analysis. Under the most liberal interpretation, the use of the term "assault" in a charging document does not inform a defendant of the "knowingly" element. For these reasons, I dissent.
I
Holt expressly holds that the constitutionality of a charging document depends on whether it includes all the statutory elements. Holt establishes simple rules for evaluating an information that omits a statutory element. "The omission of any statutory element of a crime in the charging document is a constitutional defect which may result in dismissal of the criminal charges." Holt, at 320; see also State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679, 686-90, 782 P.2d 552 (1989). The court went on in Holt to state that this type of defect not only allows for dismissal, it requires dismissal: "[B]ecause the information here failed to state any offense whatsoever, by its omission of two statutory elements of child pornography, that information is constitutionally defective and requires dismissal." Holt, at 321.
An entirely different set of rules applies when an information contains all the statutory elements but is otherwise deficient:
Conversely, if the information states each statutory element of a crime, but is vague as to some other matter significant to the defense, a bill of particulars is capable of correcting that defect. In that event, a defendant is not entitled to challenge the information on appeal if he failed to request the bill of particulars at an earlier time.
Holt, at 320. These principles are consistent with Kjorsvik's analysis.
Holt repeatedly emphasized that it was the statutory nature of these missing elements that rendered the informa*162tion constitutionally defective. This is best seen in Holt’s treatment of the earlier case of State v. Johnson, 100 Wn.2d 607, 674 P.2d 145 (1983), overruled on other grounds in State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985). In Johnson, the defendant was charged with burglary. Under the burglary statute, the State had to prove that the defendant intended to commit an underlying crime, but the statute did not require that the underlying crime be identified. The court held in Johnson that the defendant should have sought a bill of particulars and that his failure to do so constituted a waiver of the issue on appeal. Johnson, at 622-23; Holt, at 320.
In Holt, the court distinguished Johnson because the information in Johnson "did state every statutory element of burglary". Holt, at 320. Because the information in Johnson contained everything that the statute required, the information "was not fatally defective by virtue of its failure to state a crime." Holt, at 320. Even though the identification of the underlying crime is certainly important to the defense, it is not statutorily required, and therefore the charging document is not fatally defective.
Kjorsvik is similar to Johnson. The information in each case included all the statutory elements but was defective in other important regards. The current case is like Holt. The information in each case omitted a necessary statutory element. Since Kjorsvik does not involve omission of a statutory element, it should not be extended to govern this case. As this court recognized in Holt, statutory elements at a minimum must be included for an information to constitutionally state a crime.
There are strong policy reasons of judicial economy why we should not extend Kjorsvik to apply to this case. The requirement that a charging document include the statutory elements in each case is simply applied. The language is present in the statute for all to see. lb excuse the prosecution from this clearly apparent obligation means courts will be obligated in each case to determine whether the words *163used would reasonably apprise an accused of the elements of the crime charged. This is an unjustifiable burden that can be easily eliminated by reaffirming Holt's rule, under which the court need merely compare the information's language to that contained in the relevant statute.
Under Holt, the analysis in this case is straightforward. Hopper's information did not expressly include the "knowingly" element, thus the information was constitutionally defective and the charges should have been dismissed.3
II
Additionally, I would not join in the majority's analysis even if I agreed Kjorsvik should be applied. Kjorsvik calls for a liberal interpretation of the charging document, but even a liberal interpretation does not save the defective information involved here.
The majority liberally construes the term "assault" in Hopper's information as conveying the necessary element of "knowingly". See majority, at 159. I cannot agree. If the Legislature had intended the term "assault" to mean a knowing act in eveiy circumstance, it would not have enacted a statute making knowledge an additional element of the crime. The majority's interpretation in effect reads the term "knowingly" right out of the statute, despite this court's duty to give effect to each statutory term. See Clark v. Pacificorp, 118 Wn.2d 167, 183, 822 P.2d 162 (1991); PUD 1 v. Public Empl. Relations Comm'n, 110 Wn.2d 114, 118, 750 P.2d 1240 (1988).
Moreover, the Legislature has created a form of assault that does not require a knowing act. Under Washington's statutes, an assault may be committed through acts of criminal negligence. See former RCW 9A.36.030(l)(b) (in effect at the time when Hopper's acts were alleged to have *164occurred);4 current RCW 9A.36.031(1)(d).5 Criminal negligence does not involve knowing conduct. See RCW 9A.08-.010(1)(d). Thus, under Washington law the term "assault" does not necessarily refer to a knowing act.
It is this special meaning of "assault" under Washington law that undercuts the majority's reasoning on this point. The majority relies on the common law, a dictionary and writings of legal commentators to the effect that "assault" usually connotes a knowing or intentional act. Majority, at 158-59. Yet Hopper was not charged under the common law or the law of another jurisdiction; he was charged under Washington's statutes. These statutes, not the common law or the law in other states, should form the primary focus of our analysis of the meaning conveyed in the term "assault".
The majority also relies on this court's observation that "[tjhe word 'assault' is not commonly understood as referring to an unknowing or accidental act." State v. Osborne, 102 Wn.2d 87, 94, 684 P.2d 683 (1984). In Osborne, however, the court did not take into account the existence of the statute under which criminally negligent actions can constitute an assault. Former RCW 9A.36.030(1)(b); current RCW 9A.36.031(1)(d). Thus, the court apparently was unaware that under Washington's criminal law an assault can entail an unknowing act.
Accordingly, even under Kjorsvik's rules of liberal interpretation, the charging document did not inform Hopper of the "knowingly" element of second degree assault. Dismissal of the charges is warranted under these circumstances. Majority, at 155. Hopper need not show any *165prejudice, because Kjorsvik calls for an analysis of prejudice only if the liberal interpretation upholds the validity of the information. See Kjorsvik, at 105-06; majority, at 155-56.
Ill
I also comment on two other aspects of the majority's analysis.
The majority concludes that our state constitution "clearly" establishes no broader rights than those established under the federal constitution. See majority, at 156-57. My objections to this conclusion are threefold.
First, any analysis of whether the state constitution provides broader protection than the federal constitution must take into account the six nonexclusive factors of the Gunwall test. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808, 76 A.L.R.4th 517 (1986); State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 575, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990). The majority mentions, but does not apply, this test. Majority, at 156.
Second, the majority seeks to justify its conclusion as to the state constitution by stating that "Washington courts have frequently treated the Sixth Amendment and Const. art. 1, § 22 (amend. 10) as containing the same protection." Majority, at 156. This statement is misleading. In none of these cáses did the court address whether the state provision supplies broader protection than its federal counterpart.6 The majority's suggestion that this question has already been resolved is incorrect.
Third, the majority states that the federal constitution actually provides broader protection than the state constitution because only the federal constitution confers the protections associated with the right to be indicted by a grand jury. The majority does not explain why grand jury indict*166ments are relevant to the analysis of this case. Hopper was charged by information, not indictment. Whether or not the federal protection is greater when a defendant is charged by indictment has no bearing on the issue in this case.
State constitutional analysis is an impórtant aspect of constitutional law. It should not be so cavalierly treated.
Finally, I must respond to the majority's attempt to justify Kjorsvik's rules of liberal interpretation by stating that we have always engaged in this type of analysis. See majority, at 157. As the majority points out, Washington courts have indeed used a "common understanding" rule, under which a court analyzes whether "a person of common understanding can, from the allegations of the information, know the exact nature of the charge against him.'" Majority, at 157 (quoting State v. Unosawa, 29 Wn.2d 578, 589, 188 P.2d 104 (1948)). Yet in Washington's prior cases, this common understanding came into play only after the court determined that the information's express language included the essential elements. See, e.g., Unosawa, at 589. Thus, the "common understanding" rule was inapplicable to the threshold issue of whether the information contained the essential elements. It is this principle that is changed by Kjorsvik and the majority today. Far from finding support in our previous cases, the majority radically departs from the traditional analysis.
I would reverse and dismiss Hopper's conviction.
Utter, J., concurs with Johnson, J.

Many other cases have also held that a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges requires automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction. See State v. Irizarry, 111 Wn.2d 591, 595-96, 763 P.2d 432 (1988); State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 491, 745 P.2d 854 (1987); see also Leach, at 690-91. But see State v. Bailey, 114 Wn.2d 340, 348, 787 P.2d 1378 (1990).

Under the former statute, a person committed assault in the third degree if the person "[w]ith criminal negligence, . . . cause[s] physical injury to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm”. Former RCW 9A.36.030(1)(b) (repealed by Laws of 1986, ch. 257, § 9).

Under the current statute, a person commits third degree assault if he or she "[wjith criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm". RCW 9A.36.031(1)(d), amended by Laws of 1990, ch. 236, § 1.

A review of the majority's citations on this point reveals only that both constitutional provisions support the proposition that a defendant must be informed of the nature of the charges he or she faces. See State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679, 695, 782 P.2d 552 (1989); State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 18 n.41, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985); State v. Strong, 56 Wn. App. 715, 717, 785 P.2d 464, review denied, 114 Wn.2d 1022 (1990). These cases in no way address the relative scope of the two provisions.