double jeopardy clause in Washington

2025Even if true, this is not a double jeopardy error. “[D]ouble jeopardy protects a defendant . . . against multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 661 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848 , 809 P.3d 190 (1991)); see also U.S. CONST. amend.

2025Even if true, this is not a double jeopardy error. “[D]ouble jeopardy protects a defendant . . . against multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 661 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848 , 809 P.3d 190 (1991)); see also U.S. CONST. amend.

2025In applying this four-part double jeopardy analysis, Ray has the burden to establish that his assault and harassment convictions “are identical both in fact and in law.” Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 777 .

2020“In order to qualify as the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes, the two offenses must be the same both in law and in fact.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 815 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019) (citing State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 777 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995)). “‘Where a defendant’s act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy challenge must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.”’ State v. Freeman, 5 In re Pers.

2026V (“No person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”). “ ‘Where a defendant’s act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy challenge must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.’ ” State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771 , 108 P.3d 753 (2005) (quoting In re Pers.

2026V (“No person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”). “ ‘Where a defendant’s act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy challenge must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.’ ” State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771 , 108 P.3d 753 (2005) (quoting In re Pers.

2024“On review, the court may consider insufficient instructions ‘in light of the full record’ to determine if the instructions ‘actually effected a double jeopardy error.’” State v. Peña Fuentes, 179 Wn.2d 808, 824 , 318 P.3d 257 (2014) (quoting Mutch, 171 Wn.2d at 661-63 ).

2024“On review, the court may consider insufficient instructions ‘in light of the full record’ to determine if the instructions ‘actually effected a double jeopardy error.’” State v. Peña Fuentes, 179 Wn.2d 808, 824 , 318 P.3d 257 (2014) (quoting Mutch, 171 Wn.2d at 661-63 ).

2017The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Washington Constitution “protects a defendant from being punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Adel, 136 Wn.2d 629, 632 , 965 P.2d 1072 (1998); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 , 23 L.

2017The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Washington Constitution “protects a defendant from being punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Adel, 136 Wn.2d 629, 632 , 965 P.2d 1072 (1998); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 , 23 L.

2018In Broce , the Court held that when a criminal defendant pleads guilty to two separate conspiracy charges and later files a collateral attack on the convictions and sentences on double jeopardy grounds, the challenge will be rejected if it relies on proof of factual similarities between the two charges that are not apparent from the record. 488 U.S. at 570 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("[A] defendant who pleads guilty to two counts with facial allegations of distinct offenses concede[s] that he has committed two separate crimes."). ¶ 24 But Broce did not extend that rule to the situation where the factual

2018In Broce , the Court held that when a criminal defendant pleads guilty to two separate conspiracy charges and later files a collateral attack on the convictions and sentences on double jeopardy grounds, the challenge will be rejected if it relies on proof of factual similarities between the two charges that are not apparent from the record. 488 U.S. at 570 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("[A] defendant who pleads guilty to two counts with facial allegations of distinct offenses concede[s] that he has committed two separate crimes."). ¶ 24 But Broce did not extend that rule to the situation where the factual

2016Gocken, 127 Wn.2d at 100 . 3 No. 47183-3-II The double jeopardy clause prohibits a retrial only if all of the three following elements have been met: (1) jeopardy previously attached, (2) jeopardy previously terminated, and (3) the defendant is again placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

2013Article I, section 9 ofthe Washington Constitution, the double jeopardy clause, guarantees that, "[n]o person shall... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense." It mirrors the protections offered bythe federal constitutional protection against double jeopardy.2 "Double jeopardy principles protect a defendant from being convicted more than once under the same statute if the defendant commits only one unit of the crime."3 "Where a defendant's act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy 2 See State v. Gocken. 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)

2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (Noting that reversal for trial error "implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant," the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as "a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct."); State v. Anderson,

2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa

1996The double jeopardy clause applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), and is coextensive with Article I, § 9 of the Washington Constitution.

1996The double jeopardy clause applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), and is coextensive with Article I, § 9 of the Washington Constitution.

2019While any event can be split into increasingly smaller units “[t]he Double Jeopardy clause is not such a fragile guarantee that prosecutors can avoid its limitations by the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of temporal or spatial units.” 79 Wn. App. at 762 (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977)). 21 Lopez was then reviewed and criticized in Adel for not applying the unit of prosecution test in the double jeopardy challenge, though the court determined double jeopardy would nonetheless have been found

2019While any event can be split into increasingly smaller units “[t]he Double Jeopardy clause is not such a fragile guarantee that prosecutors can avoid its limitations by the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of temporal or spatial units.” 79 Wn. App. at 762 (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977)). 21 Lopez was then reviewed and criticized in Adel for not applying the unit of prosecution test in the double jeopardy challenge, though the court determined double jeopardy would nonetheless have been found

2025“If it is not clear that it was ‘manifestly apparent to the jury that the State [was] not seeking to impose multiple punishments for the same offense’ and that each count was based on a separate act, there is a double jeopardy violation.” Mutch, 171 Wn.2d at 664 (quoting State v. Berg, 147 Wn. App. 923, 931 , 198 P.3d 529 (2008)).

2025“If it is not clear that it was ‘manifestly apparent to the jury that the State [was] not seeking to impose multiple punishments for the same offense’ and that each count was based on a separate act, there is a double jeopardy violation.” Mutch, 171 Wn.2d at 664 (quoting State v. Berg, 147 Wn. App. 923, 931 , 198 P.3d 529 (2008)).

2026Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 810 - 12 (“[T]he Court of Appeals found a double jeopardy violation here, and the court must provide a remedy.

2024In response, Bin-Bellah argues that he did not waive the double jeopardy challenge in his plea agreement because the double jeopardy violations are clear from the record. -4- “A guilty plea generally insulates the defendant’s conviction from collateral attack.” State v. Knight, 162 Wn.2d 806, 811 , 174 P.3d 1167 (2008).

2003The double jeopardy clause not only protects against "`"multiple punishments for the same offense,"'" it also "`"protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction."'" Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 498 , 104 S.Ct. 2536 , *496 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 795 , 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989))). "[T]he State with all its resources and

2003The double jeopardy clause not only protects against "`"multiple punishments for the same offense,"'" it also "`"protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction."'" Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 498 , 104 S.Ct. 2536 , *496 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 795 , 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989))). "[T]he State with all its resources and

2025“Within constitutional constraints, the legislature has the power to define criminal conduct and assign punishment to it.” Kier, 164 Wn. 2d at 803 . “ ‘Where a defendant’s act supports charges under two criminal statutes, a court weighing a double jeopardy challenge must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.’ ” State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771 , 108 P.3d 753 (2005) (quoting In re Pers.

2021State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798, 804 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008). 4 4 The double jeopardy analysis is distinct from the same criminal conduct analysis under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a).

2013Rather, indicating that the constitutional provision implicated was the double jeopardy clause, the court in Johnson clearly held that the defendant's kidnapping and assault convictions merged into his first-degree rape convictions. 92 Wn.2d at 681 (holding that, when the proof of kidnapping and assault "was accepted by the jury, those crimes became merged in the completed crime offirst-degree rape" (footnote omitted)).

2013Rather, indicating that the constitutional provision implicated was the double jeopardy clause, the court in Johnson clearly held that the defendant’s kidnapping and assault convictions merged into his first degree rape convictions. 92 Wn.2d at 681 (holding that, when the proof of kidnapping and assault “was accepted by the jury, those crimes became merged in the completed crime of first-degree rape” (footnote omitted)).

2023See Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 818 . 7 If, after examining the record and applying the same evidence test we find that the State relied on distinct acts for the prosecution of the separate offenses, then the offenses are not the same in fact and the double jeopardy inquiry ends.

2019Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 815 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004). -7- No. 78775-6-1/ 8 offender multiple times for the same offense.2° Claims of double jeopardy are questions of law that we review de novo.21 When a defendant's act supports convictions under two criminal statutes, a court considering a double jeopardy challenge "must determine whether, in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense."22 In this analysis, Washington courts first ask whether, "in light of legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense."23 Second, if legislative inte

2026We have been attempting to clarify this court’s approach to these analytical frameworks and continue to refine these distinctions as opportunities arise. 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). 10 State v. Lee This case raises a question about intent, and we apply a double jeopardy analysis here.

2026We have been attempting to clarify this court’s approach to these analytical frameworks and continue to refine these distinctions as opportunities arise. 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). 10 State v. Lee This case raises a question about intent, and we apply a double jeopardy analysis here.

2021The double jeopardy clause “protects a defendant from being convicted twice under the same statute for committing just one unit of the crime.” State v. Adel, 136 Wn.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072 (1998).

2021The double jeopardy clause “protects a defendant from being convicted twice under the same statute for committing just one unit of the crime.” State v. Adel, 136 Wn.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072 (1998).

2022The double jeopardy doctrine protects defendants from “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) as amended (June 19, 2006).

2019State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 770 , 108 P.3d 753 (2005). “‘The double jeopardy doctrine protects a criminal defendant from being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.’” State v. Fuller, 185 Wn.2d 30, 33-34 , 367 P.3d 1057 (2016) (quoting State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006)).

2008Both double jeopardy clauses "bar[ ] trial if three elements are met: (a) jeopardy previously attached, (b) jeopardy previously terminated, and (c) the defendant is again in jeopardy `for the same offense.'" State v. Corrado, 81 Wash.App. 640, 645 , 915 P.2d 1121 (1996) `(footnotes omitted). ¶ 11 The Supreme Court has held the double jeopardy clause prevents retrying a defendant on aggravating factors supporting the death penalty, when a previous jury had rejected the imposition of the death penalty.

2008App. 640, 645 , 915 P.2d 1121 (1996) (footnotes omitted). ¶11 The Supreme Court has held the double jeopardy clause prevents retrying a defendant on aggravating factors supporting the death penalty when a previous jury had rejected the imposition of the death penalty.

2025Even if true, this is not a double jeopardy error. “[D]ouble jeopardy protects a defendant . . . against multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 661 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848 , 809 P.3d 190 (1991)); see also U.S. CONST. amend.

2025Even if true, this is not a double jeopardy error. “[D]ouble jeopardy protects a defendant . . . against multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646, 661 , 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848 , 809 P.3d 190 (1991)); see also U.S. CONST. amend.

2016Petition for Supreme Court review filed October 25,2016. 1 Whitt was subsequently arrested, charged, and convicted of stealing the sedan. 2 “A person is guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle if he or she possess [possesses] a stolen motor vehicle.” RCW 9A.56.068(1) (alteration in original). 3 See also State v. Donckers, 200 Wash. 45, 50 , 93 P.2d 355 (1939) (“‘It is sufficient if the evidence produce moral certainty, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.’ ’’ (quoting 8 Ruling Case Law Criminal Law § 222, at 227 (1915))). 4 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

2016Petition for Supreme Court review filed October 25,2016. 1 Whitt was subsequently arrested, charged, and convicted of stealing the sedan. 2 “A person is guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle if he or she possess [possesses] a stolen motor vehicle.” RCW 9A.56.068(1) (alteration in original). 3 See also State v. Donckers, 200 Wash. 45, 50 , 93 P.2d 355 (1939) (“‘It is sufficient if the evidence produce moral certainty, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.’ ’’ (quoting 8 Ruling Case Law Criminal Law § 222, at 227 (1915))). 4 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

2025See State v. Hatt, 11 Wn. App. 2d 113 , 139, 452 P.3d 577 (2019) (holding same criminal conduct differs from double jeopardy violation claim); State v. French, 157 Wn.2d 593, 611 , 141 P.3d 54 (2006) ( “A double jeopardy violation claim is distinct from a ‘same criminal conduct’ claim and requires a separate analysis.”); State v. Tili, 139 Wn.2d 107 , 119 n.5, 985 P.2d 365 (1999) (noting “same criminal conduct” analysis under Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, 13 and “unit of prosecution” analysis under double jeopardy are distinct).

2025See State v. Hatt, 11 Wn. App. 2d 113 , 139, 452 P.3d 577 (2019) (holding same criminal conduct differs from double jeopardy violation claim); State v. French, 157 Wn.2d 593, 611 , 141 P.3d 54 (2006) ( “A double jeopardy violation claim is distinct from a ‘same criminal conduct’ claim and requires a separate analysis.”); State v. Tili, 139 Wn.2d 107 , 119 n.5, 985 P.2d 365 (1999) (noting “same criminal conduct” analysis under Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, 13 and “unit of prosecution” analysis under double jeopardy are distinct).

2015State v. Schoel, 54 Wn.2d 388, 391 , 341 P.2d 481 (1959). ¶7 In general, we find a double jeopardy violation “where (1) jeopardy has previously attached, (2) that jeopardy has terminated, and (3) the defendant is in jeopardy a second time for the same offense in fact and law.” State v. Ervin, 158 Wn.2d 746, 752 , 147 P.3d 567 (2006).

2015State v. Schoel, 54 Wn.2d 388, 391 , 341 P.2d 481 (1959). ¶7 In general, we find a double jeopardy violation “where (1) jeopardy has previously attached, (2) that jeopardy has terminated, and (3) the defendant is in jeopardy a second time for the same offense in fact and law.” State v. Ervin, 158 Wn.2d 746, 752 , 147 P.3d 567 (2006).

2026With regard to same in law, “[i]f there is an element in each offense which is not included in the other, and proof of one offense would not necessarily also prove the other, the offenses are not constitutionally the same[,] and the double jeopardy clause does not prevent convictions for both offenses.” State v. Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d 413, 423 , 662 P.2d 853 (1983).

2026With regard to same in law, “[i]f there is an element in each offense which is not included in the other, and proof of one offense would not necessarily also prove the other, the offenses are not constitutionally the same[,] and the double jeopardy clause does not prevent convictions for both offenses.” State v. Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d 413, 423 , 662 P.2d 853 (1983).

2017State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643, 649 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007). “‘The double jeopardy doctrine protects a criminal defendant from being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.’” State v. Fuller, 185 Wn.2d 30, 33-34 , 367 P.3d 1057 (2016) (quoting State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006)).

2017State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643, 649 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007). “‘The double jeopardy doctrine protects a criminal defendant from being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.’” State v. Fuller, 185 Wn.2d 30, 33-34 , 367 P.3d 1057 (2016) (quoting State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006)).

1999Accordingly, despite the fact that the case law clearly establishes the proper double jeopardy test to apply, Turay is advocating the use of an erroneous test. [27] In an attempt to buttress his "as applied" challenge, Turay cites United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), overruled by Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 , 118 S.Ct. 488, 493 , 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), as standing for the proposition that a civil or criminal sanction constitutes punishment when the sanction as applied in the particular case serves the goals of punishment.

1999Accordingly, despite the fact that the case law clearly establishes the proper double jeopardy test to apply, Turay is advocating the use of an erroneous test. [27] In an attempt to buttress his "as applied" challenge, Turay cites United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), overruled by Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 , 118 S.Ct. 488, 493 , 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), as standing for the proposition that a civil or criminal sanction constitutes punishment when the sanction as applied in the particular case serves the goals of punishment.