State v. Sutherby (2009)

App. 2011) 210 N.C.App. 128, 133 [ 707 S.E.2d 664, 669 ], [― ‗[t]he rule of lenity ‗forbids a court to interpret a statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when the Legislature has not clearly stated such an intention.‘ ‖]; State v. Watkins (Tenn. 2012) 362 S.W.3d 530, 543 [―any ambiguity in defining the unit of conduct for prosecution is resolved against the conclusion that the legislature intended to authorize multiple units of prosecution‖]; A…

Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 884 (“[J]oinder of charges can be particularly prejudicial when the alleged crimes are sexual in nature. . .

Indeed, as Castaneda points out: The word “‘any’ has multiple, conflicting definitions, including (1) one; (2) one, some, or all regardless of quantity; (3) great, unmeasured, or unlimited in amount; (4) one or more; and (5) all.” State v. Sutherby, 165 Wash. 2d 870, 880 (2009) (citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976)). … In fact, … “the word ‘any’ has ‘typically been found ambiguous in connection with the allowable unit of prosecution,’ for it contempl…

See State v. Adel, 136 Wn.2d 629, 637 , 965 P.2d 1072 (1998)(unit of prosecution for misdemeanor marijuana possession was possessing 40 grams of marijuana or less, regardless of the number of locations the drug was kept); Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 882 (where statute for possession of child pornography prohibits possession of sexually explicit visual material defined as"any photograph or other material that contains a reproduction of a photograph," the unit of prosecution is one…

A NJ, 165 Wn.2d at 102, 115 . -12- No. 75502-1-1/13 that IN CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY GUILTY PLEA(S), I UNDERSTAND THAT:... 1 will be required to register where I reside, attend school, or work." Second, during the trial court's colloquy Drammeh also confirmed that he understood that he would be required to register for a period of time: [STATE]: Do you also understand that you can be required to register as a sex offender for a period prescribed by statute? [DRAMME…

Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 884 (emphasis added).

Id. at 883-84 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

Sutherbv. 165 Wn.2d at 883.

In this context there is a recognized danger of prejudice to the defendant even if the jury is properly instructed to consider the crimes separately." 165 Wn.2d at 884 ( citation omitted).

Id. at 879, 882 . 4 The logic of extending these considerations to possession of child pornography is supported by the reasoning of United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 133 S. Ct. 589 (2012).

Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 878-79 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Adel, 136 Wn.2d at 634-35 ).

App. 438, 443 , 322 P.3d 1238 (2014). 52 Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 878-79 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Adel, 136 Wn.2d at 634-35 ). 53 State v. Durrett, 150 Wn.

But there, the charges Sutherby sought to have severed were sex crimes, and the court cautioned that prejudice is "' particularly important in sex cases, where the potential for prejudice is at its highest. "' Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 886 ( quoting State v. Coe, 101 Wn.2d 772 , 780 -81, 684 P. 2d 668 ( 1984)).

This case law demonstrates that there is a uniform, consistent, and thus plain meaning for the widely used term “any.” So we reaffirm Washington precedent and interpret “ ‘any' to mean ‘every’ or ‘all.’ ” Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 881 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263 , 271 & n.8, 814 P.2d 652 (1991)); State v. Westling, 145 Wn.2d 607, 611 , 40 P.3d 669 (2002); Smith, 117 Wn.2d at 271 (“Washington courts have repeatedly construed the word…

This case law demonstrates that there is a uniform, consistent, and thus 5 Fisher Broadcasting v. City of Seattle, No. 87271-6 Fairhurst, J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part) plain meaning for the widely used term "any." So we reaffirm Washington precedent and interpret "'any' to mean 'every' or 'all."' Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 881 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263 , 271 & n.8, 814 P.2d 652 (1991)); State v. Westling, 145 Wn.2d 607…

The decision in Sutherby precluded the State from charging Furseth with multiple acts of possession of child pornography. ¶7 The unit of prosecution analysis is pertinent to this case because the analysis in Sutherby concerns “what act or course of conduct” the legislature has proscribed. 165 Wn.2d at 879 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Root, 141 Wn.2d 701, 706 , 9 P.3d 214 (2000)).

See Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 884 .

Pittman now claims that the trial court should have given a limiting instruction to “not use evidence of one crime to decide guilt for a separate crime.” Br. of Appellant at 17; see Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 885-86 .

See Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 883 .

See State v. Sutherby , 165 Wash.2d 870 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009) ; Wilkerson v. State , 728 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. App. 2000).

See Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d at 883 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

See State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 880-82 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009); State v. Westling, 145 Wn.2d 607 , 611- 12, 40 P.3d 669 (2002).

See State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 880-82 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009); State v. Westling, 145 Wn.2d 607 , 611- 12, 40 P.3d 669 (2002).

See State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 880-82 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009); State v. Westling, 145 Wn.2d 607, 611-12 , 40 P.3d 669 (2002).

See Sutherbv, 165 Wn.2d at 883 .

See State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 888 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009); State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 232 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987); State v. Powell, 150 Wn.

See State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 888 , 204 P. 3d 916 ( 2009); State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 232 , 743 P. 2d 816 ( 1987); State v. Powell, 150 Wn.