State Of Washington, V A.l.r.h.
500 P.3d 188
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On February 5, 2020 the State charged juvenile A.L.R.H. with possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21; he was adjudicated guilty after a stipulated trial.
- The adjudication was based on former RCW 69.50.4014, which criminalized possession of ≤40 grams of marijuana without any express intent element.
- The Washington Supreme Court in State v. Blake held that the strict‑liability controlled‑substances possession statute was void because it criminalized innocent and passive possession, violating due process.
- After Blake, the Legislature amended RCW 69.50.4014 to add the word "knowing," evidencing that the earlier statute lacked a mens rea element.
- The juvenile appellate court held that former RCW 69.50.4014 was unconstitutional under Blake and reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate A.L.R.H.’s adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.L.R.H.’s adjudication under former RCW 69.50.4014 must be vacated because the statute is void after Blake | A.L.R.H.: Blake renders the statute unconstitutional because it lacks an intent element and criminalizes innocent, passive possession | State: Blake does not apply here because the challenged provision imposes a less severe punishment (misdemeanor) than the statute invalidated in Blake | Court: Vacated adjudication. Former RCW 69.50.4014 is unconstitutional and void for lacking a mens rea element; legislative amendment adding "knowing" confirms intent was absent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) (held strict‑liability controlled‑substances possession statute void for criminalizing innocent and passive possession)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853 (2004) (conviction based on a nonexistent or void statute is invalid)
- State v. Carlson, 65 Wn. App. 153 (1992) (legislative change in statutory language is presumed to reflect an intent to change the law)