State v. Rivera-Santos

214 P.3d 130 (Wash. 2009) · Supreme Court of Washington · August 20, 2009 · No. No. 81445-7

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that Washington's statutory double-jeopardy provision, RCW 10.43.040, did not bar prosecution for Washington DUI after the defendant had been convicted of DUII in Oregon arising from the same interstate driving trip. The court concluded that the Oregon and Washington offenses involved conduct occurring in separate territorial jurisdictions and therefore were not based on the same act for purposes of the statute. The court affirmed the superior court's decision allowing the Washington prosecution.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
Fairhurst, J.; Alexander, C.J.; C. Johnson, J.; Madsen, J.; Sanders, J.; Chambers, J.; Owens, J.; Johnson, J.; Stephens, J.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
August 20, 2009
Docket number
No. 81445-7
Procedural posture
The State sought direct discretionary review of a superior court ruling affirming dismissal of a Washington DUI prosecution under Washington's statutory double-jeopardy provision after the defendant had been convicted of DUII in Oregon.
Standard of review
The meaning of RCW 10.43.040 is a question of law reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Washington Supreme Court opinion; binding precedent in Washington.
Parties
State of Washington v. Santiago Rivera-Santos
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

double jeopardycriminal procedurestatutory interpretationfederalism

Practice areas

criminal proceduredouble jeopardystatutory interpretationconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether RCW 10.43.040 bars Washington from prosecuting a defendant for DUI when the defendant was previously convicted in Oregon of DUII arising from the same continuous trip.

Holdings

  1. RCW 10.43.040 does not bar Washington's prosecution because the Oregon DUII was committed in Oregon, where Washington courts did not have jurisdiction, and the alleged Washington DUI was not an offense committed in another state or country within the meaning of the statute. The fact that both offenses occurred during the same trip does not make them the same act for purposes of RCW 10.43.040.

Key quotations

The requirement that conduct, condition, and location converge in time make DUII (and DUI) a continuous crime that is complete at each moment that convergence exists. (214 P.3d at 131)
Rivera-Santos' conviction for DUII in Oregon does not preclude his prosecution for DUI in Washington even though both alleged offenses were committed during the same trip behind the wheel. (214 P.3d at 133)

Factual background

On January 12, 2007, Rivera-Santos drove erratically on Washington roads and continued into Oregon. Washington State Patrol and Portland police observed him swerving, stopping in traffic, crossing the center line, and driving onto a curb before stopping him in Portland. He was arrested and convicted of DUII in Oregon, then charged with DUI in Washington based on his driving within Washington.

Procedural history

Rivera-Santos was convicted of DUII in Oregon after driving from Washington into Oregon. Washington charged him with DUI under RCW 46.61.502. The Clark County District Court dismissed the Washington charge under RCW 10.43.040, but the Clark County Superior Court reversed, concluding that the Washington and Oregon conduct constituted separate acts. The Washington Supreme Court granted direct discretionary review and affirmed the superior court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…