State of Washington v. Justin Robert Rose
365 P.3d 756
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- On June 26, 2012, Justin Rose (over 21) was found smoking marijuana and handed a bong containing marijuana to a WDFW agent; he was charged with possession (<40g) and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia.
- In October 2012 Rose entered a deferral agreement: compliance for one year would lead to dismissal; noncompliance would permit revocation and a stipulated bench trial based on police reports.
- Initiative 502 (1-502) was approved Nov. 6, 2012 and became effective Dec. 6, 2012; it decriminalized possession by persons 21+ of up to one ounce and removed marijuana paraphernalia from unlawful categories (certain production/sale provisions awaited regulation).
- Rose violated the deferral, the stay was revoked, and a bench trial in early 2013 resulted in convictions; before sentencing Rose moved to dismiss based on 1-502’s decriminalization.
- The trial and superior courts denied relief; the Court of Appeals granted review and the appellate court reversed, holding 1-502 fairly conveyed voter intent to stop prosecuting adult possession and paraphernalia offenses effective Dec. 6, 2012, so Rose’s convictions were reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative 502’s decriminalization of adult possession and paraphernalia applies to prosecutions pending when it became effective | Rose: 1-502 expressly/ fairly conveys voters’ intent to stop treating adult marijuana use as a crime, so pending prosecutions for decriminalized conduct should be dismissed | State: RCW 10.01.040’s saving clause presumptively preserves prosecution of offenses committed under prior law unless the amending act itself explicitly expresses contrary intent; 1-502 lacks such explicit language | Court: Reversed convictions — 1-502’s intent language and voters’ pamphlet fairly convey a contrary intention overcoming the saving statute for the decriminalized conduct effective Dec. 6, 2012 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zornes, 78 Wn.2d 9 (Wash. 1970) (found statutory language that cannabis "shall not ever be applicable" fairly conveyed retroactive intent)
- State v. Grant, 89 Wn.2d 678 (Wash. 1978) (policy language that intoxicated persons "may not be subjected to criminal prosecution" construed as intent to prevent trials after effective date)
- State v. Kane, 101 Wn. App. 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (savings clause applied narrowly; legislative history cannot substitute for statutory language that fairly conveys retroactivity)
- State v. Brewster, 152 Wn. App. 856 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (discussing common-law rule vs. statutory savings clause)
- Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep’t of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570 (Wash. 2008) (initiative interpretation requires ascertaining collective voter intent; plain language controls)