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.

2025Still, flawed jury instructions create only a “possibility of a double jeopardy violation.” Mutch, 171 Wn.2d at 663 .

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.

2025A. Assault in the Second Degree and Robbery in the First Degree Where, as here, the alleged double jeopardy violation involves convictions for robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, “a case by case approach is required to determine whether [the crimes] are the same for double jeopardy purposes.” Freeman, 153 Wn.2d at 780 .

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.

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)

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 , 23 L.

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 , 23 L.

2009The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall “ ‘be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 164 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.

2009The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall “ ‘be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 164 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.

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.

2024Our review is rigorous “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 Berg, 147 Wn.

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- No. 83711-7-I/5 “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).

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

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).

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.

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.

2023See Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 818 . 7 No. 57050-5-II 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

2026The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense “because the double jeopardy clause does not 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.

2026The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense “because the double jeopardy clause does not 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.

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).

2021When examining a purported double jeopardy violation, this court looks to “what act or course of conduct has the Legislature defined as the punishable act.” 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).

2021When examining a purported double jeopardy violation, this court looks to “what act or course of conduct has the Legislature defined as the punishable act.” 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)).

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.

2024“The double jeopardy clause does not prohibit the imposition of separate punishments 19 No. 37522-6-III State v. Gustavo Tapia Rodriguez for different offenses.” State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 848 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991) (emphasis added).

2019In other words, “[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) (emphasis added).

2019In other words, “[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) (emphasis added).

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 7 48384-0-II 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)).

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- No. 83711-7-I/5 “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).

2017In In re Personal Restraint of Francis, 170 Wn.2d 517 , 242 P.3d 866 (2010), the court held that while "[a] guilty plea, by its nature, admits factual guilt—and thus waives any challenge on that ground," pleading guilty does not waive a double jeopardy challenge to "'"the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him."'" Francis, 170 Wn.2d at 522 (quoting State v. Knight, 162 Wn.2d 806, 811 , 174 P.3d 1167 (2008) (quoting Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30 , 94 S. Ct. 2098 , 40 L.