due process clause in Washington

2023The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution “requires that citizens be afforded fair warning of proscribed conduct.” Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 178 .

2023As an initial matter, the due process clause focuses on whether citizens have 12 No. 56949-3-II “fair warning of proscribed conduct.” Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 178 (emphasis added).

2025Matthews sets forth a series of factors courts analyze to assess a due process claim. 424 U.S. at 334-35 .

2021Ed. 2d 18 (1976). 15 Matter of Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 , 102, 469 P.3d 1163 (2020) (citing Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754 ). 4 No. 81795-7-I/5 the procedures used.16 A due process violation occurred when “there was an intolerable risk of error at the proceedings given the private interests at stake.”17 In Matter of Welfare of M.B., the court concluded an incarcerated father’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s management of a termination trial.18 The father’s attorney had attempted to arrange for the father to participate telephonically, but prison staff refused to cooperat

2021Ed. 2d 18 (1976). 15 Matter of Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 , 102, 469 P.3d 1163 (2020) (citing Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754 ). 4 No. 81795-7-I/5 the procedures used.16 A due process violation occurred when “there was an intolerable risk of error at the proceedings given the private interests at stake.”17 In Matter of Welfare of M.B., the court concluded an incarcerated father’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s management of a termination trial.18 The father’s attorney had attempted to arrange for the father to participate telephonically, but prison staff refused to cooperat

2021Ed. 2d 18 (1976). 15 Matter of Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 , 102, 469 P.3d 1163 (2020) (citing Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754 ). 4 No. 81795-7-I/5 the procedures used.16 A due process violation occurred when “there was an intolerable risk of error at the proceedings given the private interests at stake.”17 In Matter of Welfare of M.B., the court concluded an incarcerated father’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s management of a termination trial.18 The father’s attorney had attempted to arrange for the father to participate telephonically, but prison staff refused to cooperat

2019The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as “requiring the State to prove 5 No. 35901-8-III State v. Knapp ‘beyond a reasonable doubt . . . every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [a defendant] is charged.’” W.R., 181 Wn.2d at 761-62 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 , 25 L.

2018The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the State to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.55 Instructing the 52 State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535, 539-40 , 387 P.3d 703 (2017). 53 Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d at 539-40 . 54 State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 656 , 904 P.2d 245 (1995). 55 State v. W.R., 181 Wn.2d 757, 762 , 336 P.3d 1134 (2014). -12 No. 76074-2-1 / 13 jury in a manner that relieves the State of this burden is reversible error.66 Our Supreme Court has held that consent negates the element of forcible compulsion of

2025The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [they are] charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 , 25 L.

2025The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [they are] charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 , 25 L.

2021Co. v. State, 73 Wn.2d 405, 420-22 , 439 9 We “have repeatedly noted that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control our interpretation of the state constitution’s due process clause.” State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d 631, 639 , 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) (citing Olympic Forest Prods., Inc., 82 Wn.2d 418 ; Petstel, Inc. v. County of King, 77 Wn.2d 144 , 459 P.2d 937 (1969)); see also Yim, 194 Wn.2d at 690 (“[T]his court has a duty to recognize heightened constitutional protections as a matter of independent state law in appropriate cases.” (citing O’

2021Co. v. State, 73 Wn.2d 405, 420-22 , 439 9 We “have repeatedly noted that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control our interpretation of the state constitution’s due process clause.” State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d 631, 639 , 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) (citing Olympic Forest Prods., Inc., 82 Wn.2d 418 ; Petstel, Inc. v. County of King, 77 Wn.2d 144 , 459 P.2d 937 (1969)); see also Yim, 194 Wn.2d at 690 (“[T]his court has a duty to recognize heightened constitutional protections as a matter of independent state law in appropriate cases.” (citing O’

2017“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent’s right to the custody, care, and companionship of [his or] her children.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S. Ct. 1208 , 31 L.

2017“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent’s right to the custody, care, and companionship of [his or] her children.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S. Ct. 1208 , 31 L.

2025The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “ ‘[P]rocedural due process requires that an individual receive notice of the deprivation and an opportunity to be heard to guard against erroneous deprivation’ of a protected interest.” Fields v. Dep’t of Early Learning, 193 Wn.2d 36 , 44, 434 P.3d 999 (2019) (quoting Amunrud v. Bd. of App., 158 Wn.2d 208, 216 , 143 P.3d 571 (2006)).

2025This case implicates the substantive component of the due process clause, which “‘protects against arbitrary and capricious government action even when the decision to take action is pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.” Id. at 688-89 (quoting Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wn.2d 208, 218-19 , 143 P.3d 571 (2006)).

2012Young, 122 Wash.2d at 27-33 , 857 P.2d 989 . ¶ 59 Because commitment for SVPs is indefinite in nature, the due process requirement that an SVP be mentally ill and dangerous is ongoing.

2012Young, 122 Wash.2d at 27-33 , 857 P.2d 989 . ¶ 59 Because commitment for SVPs is indefinite in nature, the due process requirement that an SVP be mentally ill and dangerous is ongoing.

2011E.S. responded in a supplemental brief to this court that even if the Fourteenth Amendment does not compel appointment of counsel for a child in an initial truancy hearing, article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution, which, according to E.S., offers broader due process protections than its federal counterpart, does compel appointment of counsel. [2] To this contention, the District argues that the factors set forth in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), do not support an independent analysis of this state's due process clause. ¶ 13 Significantly, RCW 28A.225.035(10

2011E.S. responded in a supplemental brief to this court that even if the Fourteenth Amendment does not compel appointment of counsel for a child in an initial truancy hearing, article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution, which, according to E.S., offers broader due process protections than its federal counterpart, does compel appointment of counsel. [2] To this contention, the District argues that the factors set forth in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), do not support an independent analysis of this state's due process clause. ¶ 13 Significantly, RCW 28A.225.035(10

2006"To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person's reliance on his legal rights is `patently unconstitutional.'" Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 363 , 98 S.Ct. 663 (quoting Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 , 32 n. 20, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973)) (citation omitted); see North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 738 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); United States v. Falcon, 347 F.3d 1000, 1004 (7th Cir.2003

2006However, the underlying principle is not “the proposition that actual retaliatory motivation must inevitably exist,” but instead that “ ‘the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise’ ” of his or her legal rights, Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 28 (quoting Pearce, 395 U.S. at 725 ), and the due process violation lies “in the danger that the State might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully” exercising a constitutional or statutory right, Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 363 .

2020Ed. 2d 508 (2003) and Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77-83 , to argue that a plaintiff may raise a due process claim to obtain relief in an enforcement action.

2020Ed. 2d 508 (2003), and Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77-83 , to argue that a plaintiff may raise a due process claim to obtain relief in an enforcement action. 10 Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any Washington court has endorsed this doctrine. 11 Henry A. concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against a county and county officials for alleged systematic failures in its foster care system that injured children in its care. 678 F.3d at 996-98 .

2026Parents have a “fundamental liberty and privacy interest in the care, custody, and companionship of their children.” In re Parental Rts. to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 477 , 379 P.3d 75 (2016). “ ‘The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent's right to the custody, care, and companionship of [his or] her children.’ ” K.J.B., 187 Wn.2d at 597 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609, 836 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992)).

2026Parents have a “fundamental liberty and privacy interest in the care, custody, and companionship of their children.” In re Parental Rts. to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 477 , 379 P.3d 75 (2016). “ ‘The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent's right to the custody, care, and companionship of [his or] her children.’ ” K.J.B., 187 Wn.2d at 597 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609, 836 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992)).

2025“The purpose of the sufficiency inquiry is to ‘ensure that the trial court fact finder “rationally appl[ied]” the constitutional standard required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows for conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Berg, 181 Wn.2d 857, 867 , 337 P.3d 310 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn.

2025The purpose of a sufficiency of evidence inquiry is to “‘ensure that the trial court fact finder “rationally appl[ied]” the constitutional standard required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution], which allows for conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Berg, 181 Wn.2d 857, 867 , 337 P.3d 310 (2014) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn.

2023THE “FREE CRIMES” AGGRAVATOR WAS PROPERLY APPLIED In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Sixth Amendment, taken together, require that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2023THE “FREE CRIMES” AGGRAVATOR WAS PROPERLY APPLIED In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Sixth Amendment, taken together, require that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2015We hold there was no violation of his right to due process. 36 Id, at 534-35. 37 Id. at 535. 13 No. 71094-0-1/14 The State's delay in filing charges may violate due process, even ifthe charges are filed within the statute of limitations.38 Washington courts analyze preaccusatorial delay under a three prong test: (1) [T]he defendant must show actual prejudice from the delay; (2) if the defendant shows prejudice, the court must determine the reasons for the delay; (3) the court must then weigh the reasons and the prejudice to determine whether fundamental conceptions of justice would be violated

2015We hold there was no violation of his right to due process. 36 Id, at 534-35. 37 Id. at 535. 13 No. 71094-0-1/14 The State's delay in filing charges may violate due process, even ifthe charges are filed within the statute of limitations.38 Washington courts analyze preaccusatorial delay under a three prong test: (1) [T]he defendant must show actual prejudice from the delay; (2) if the defendant shows prejudice, the court must determine the reasons for the delay; (3) the court must then weigh the reasons and the prejudice to determine whether fundamental conceptions of justice would be violated

2017The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a criminal defendant “a fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of a trial.” State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874, 880 , 246 P.3d 796 (2011).

2015A. United States Constitution’s Right To Be Present at All Critical Stages of Trial ¶16 The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a criminal defendant “a fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of a trial.” Irby, 170 Wn.2d at 880 .

2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L.

2020State v. Wicklund, 96 Wn.2d 798, 800 , 638 P.2d 1241 (1982) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 904 , 43 L.

2021The due process clause of the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution require that the sufficiency of the evidence be tested with respect to the charged offense, “of which the defendant was given notice and the opportunity to defend.” Id. at 673.

2020The Court further explained that such a standard preserves “the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence . . . through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.”1 Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 .2 1 Applying this standard, the Jackson Court ultimately held, after reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that “a rational factfinder could readily have found [Jackson] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree murder under Virginia law.” 443 U.S. at 324 . 2 The Jackson standa

2020Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-05 , 85 5.

2019Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-405 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.

2015“In this respect, the due process clause forbids ‘criminal statutes that contain no standards and allow police officers, judge, and jury to subjectively decide what conduct the statute proscribes or what conduct will comply with a statute in any given case.’ ” Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 181 (quoting State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 267 , 676 P.2d 996 (1984)). ¶60 Elkins’ argument focuses on the fact the statute allows the State to convict a person of second degree murder without requiring the State to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

2015“In this respect, the due process clause forbids ‘criminal statutes that contain no standards and allow police officers, judge, and jury to subjectively decide what conduct the statute proscribes or what conduct will comply with a statute in any given case.’ ” Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 181 (quoting State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 267 , 676 P.2d 996 (1984)). ¶60 Elkins’ argument focuses on the fact the statute allows the State to convict a person of second degree murder without requiring the State to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

2014"Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a statute is void for vagueness if either: (1) the statute 'does not define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is proscribed'; or (2) the statute 'does not provide ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement.'" [Lorang. 140 Wn.2d at 30 (quoting State v. Halstien. 122 Wn.2d 109, 117 , 857 P.2d 270 (1993) (quoting City of Spokane v. Douglass. 115 Wn.2d 171, 178 , 795 P.2d 693 (1990)))].

2014"Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a statute is void for vagueness if either: (1) the statute 'does not define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is proscribed'; or (2) the statute 'does not provide ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement.'" [Lorang. 140 Wn.2d at 30 (quoting State v. Halstien. 122 Wn.2d 109, 117 , 857 P.2d 270 (1993) (quoting City of Spokane v. Douglass. 115 Wn.2d 171, 178 , 795 P.2d 693 (1990)))].

2008Thus, at a minimum, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution demands that a deprivation of property be preceded by “ ‘notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’ ” Olympic, 82 Wn.2d at 422 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313 ).

2008Thus, at a minimum, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution demands that a deprivation property be preceded by "`notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Olympic, 82 Wash.2d at 422 , 511 P.2d 1002 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313 , 70 S.Ct. 652 ).

2013Under the due process clause, an out-of-state taxpayer must have sufficient minimum contacts with the taxing state such that taxation “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S. Ct. 154 , 90 L.

2013Under the due process clause, an out-of-state taxpayer must have sufficient minimum contacts with the taxing state such that taxation “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S. Ct. 154 , 90 L.

2016The Department’s administrative rule, WAC 458-20-103, also defines when a sale takes place: For the purpose of determining [B&O] tax liability of persons selling tangible personal property, a sale takes place in this state when the goods sold are delivered to the buyer in this state, irrespective of whether title to the goods passes to the buyer at a point within or without this state. ¶10 “A tax on an out-of-state corporation must satisfy both the requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the commerce clause.” Lamtec, 170 Wn.2d at 843 (citing Quill Corp. v. North

2016The Department’s administrative rule, WAC 458-20-103, also defines when a sale takes place: For the purpose of determining [B&O] tax liability of persons selling tangible personal property, a sale takes place in this state when the goods sold are delivered to the buyer in this state, irrespective of whether title to the goods passes to the buyer at a point within or without this state. ¶10 “A tax on an out-of-state corporation must satisfy both the requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the commerce clause.” Lamtec, 170 Wn.2d at 843 (citing Quill Corp. v. North

2021“A due process claim based on outrageous conduct requires more than a mere demonstration of flagrant police conduct.” State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1, 20 , 921 P.2d 1035 (1996).

2018II A In evaluating a trial court's determination that the State engaged in outrageous misconduct in violation of a defendant's due process right to fundamental fairness, we initially turn to our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1 , 921 P.2d 1035 (1996). 6 Earlier that day, Solomon had messaged Detective Luvera, "I hae 60 in my pocket." -6 - No. 76298-2-1/7 1 In Lively, our Supreme Court recognized that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against conduct by state actors "so outrageous that due process principles wou