State v. Westling

145 Wash. 2d 607 (2002) · Supreme Court of Washington · February 21, 2002

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a defendant’s three convictions for second-degree arson violated double jeopardy because he caused a single fire that damaged three automobiles. Interpreting RCW 9A.48.030(1), the court concluded that the unit of prosecution is the fire, not the number of vehicles, victims, or property owners affected. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing on one count.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
Madsen, J.; Alexander, C.J.; Smith, J.; Johnson, J.; Sanders, J.; Ireland, J.; Bridge, J.; Chambers, J.; Owens, J.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
February 21, 2002
Procedural posture
Criminal appeal following convictions for three counts of second degree arson. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the multiple convictions.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the statutory unit-of-prosecution question de novo and examined the facts to determine whether multiple units of prosecution occurred.
Precedential value
Published Washington Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
State of Washington v. Jason Westling
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

double jeopardycriminal procedurestatutory interpretationconstitutional lawsentencing

Practice areas

criminal lawconstitutional lawcriminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether convicting Westling of three counts of second degree arson for one fire that damaged three automobiles violated the federal and Washington constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.
  2. What the unit of prosecution is under RCW 9A.48.030(1) for second degree arson.

Holdings

  1. The unit of prosecution for second degree arson is the causing of a fire or explosion, not the number of victims or automobiles damaged.
  2. Westling's three convictions for second degree arson violated the federal and Washington constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because a single fire constituted only one unit of prosecution.

Key quotations

Thus, under the plain language of the statute, one conviction is appropriate where one fire damages multiple automobiles, i.e., by use of the word “any” the statute speaks in terms of “every” and “all” automobiles damaged by the one fire. (612)
Because he set only one fire that damaged three vehicles, there is factually only one unit of prosecution. Westling’s multiple convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. (612)

Factual background

A fire set by Jason Westling damaged a teacher's automobile and two other automobiles in a high school parking lot. Westling was charged with and convicted of three counts of second degree arson, and the trial court imposed concurrent 15-month sentences. The convictions were based on the damage to three vehicles resulting from the single fire.

Procedural history

Westling was charged with and convicted by a jury of three counts of second degree arson after one fire damaged three automobiles. The trial court imposed concurrent 15-month sentences. The Court of Appeals upheld the three convictions, reasoning that separate counts were proper for each person damaged by a fire. The Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing on one count.

Remand instructions

Remand for resentencing on one count of second degree arson.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…