State v. Hirschfelder
242 P.3d 876
Wash.2010Background
- Hirschfelder, a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School, had sexual intercourse with a registered student A.N.T. who was 18 at the time.
- Hirschfelder was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree under former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b).
- Former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) criminalized sex between a school employee and a registered student who is at least sixteen and not married to the employee, if the employee is sixty months older.
- At issue is whether 'minor' includes students aged 18–21 or only those under 18, and whether the statute is vague or violates equal protection.
- The Court of Appeals held the term 'minor' excluded 18+ students; the Supreme Court granted review to interpret the statute.
- The Court majority held that 'minor' includes registered students aged 16–21, and that the statute is not vague or unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'minor' in former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) include 18–21-year-olds? | Hirschfelder contends 'minor' excludes 18+ students. | The State argues 'minor' covers registered students 16–21. | Yes; 'minor' includes 16–21. |
| Is former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) unconstitutionally vague? | Hirschfelder asserts vagueness due to broad terms. | State asserts statute provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct. | No; statute is not vague. |
| Does former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) violate equal protection? | Hirschfelder argues discriminatory treatment against non-K-12 employees or others. | State contends rational basis; class is rationally related to protecting students. | No; rational basis satisfied. |
| Does RCW 9A.44.030(3)(d) defense affect interpretation of the statute? | Dissent argues the affirmative defense governs, aligning with age-based elements. | Majority relies on plain reading over the defense interplay. | Defense does not alter the plain reading; statute valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1 (2002) (statutory meaning is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444 (2003) (plain meaning and harmonization of statutes)
- Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash.2d 126 (2001) (sequence and interaction of related statutes governs interpretation)
- State v. Clinkenbeard, 130 Wash.App. 552 (2005) (rational basis for distinguishing public employees in protection of children)
- Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Wash. State Dep't of Health, 164 Wash.2d 570 (2008) (rational basis and equal protection principles in public health context)
- State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wash.2d 738 (1988) (privacy rights and statutory interpretation relevance)