State v. Rice, 279 P.3d 849

Rice, a former fourth-grade teacher, molested a 10-year-old student and abducted the same boy.
She was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree with a special allegation of sexual motivation and of child molestation in the first degree with a predatory finding, plus two counts of rape of a child in the third degree.
The special allegations under RCW 9.94A.835, .836, and .837 increased her sentencing options by requiring sex-offender designations or age-based findings.
Rice challenged the charging statutes as mandatory under separation of powers; the State argued the legislature can guide but not coerce charging discretion.
The Court of Appeals upheld; this Court granted discretionary review to determine if the statutes are mandatory or directory and constitutional under separation of powers.
The Court holds the statutes are directory and affirm Rice’s conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are RCW 9.94A.835, .836, and .837 mandatory or directory?	Rice argues the statutes are mandatory and infringe prosecutorial discretion.	State contends the statutes are directory, guiding but not forcing filing.	Statutes are directory, not mandatory.
Do the challenged statutes violate separation of powers?	Rice asserts legislative control over charging evidence usurps prosecutorial discretion.	State argues discretion remains with prosecutors; statutes do not eliminate it.	Directory reading preserves prosecutorial discretion and constitutional balance.
Does Rice have standing to challenge the statutes as applied to her sentence?	Rice has an interest in the enhanced sentence from the challenged charges.	Standing is not contested on the face of the statute.	Rice has standing to challenge the statutes as applied.

State v. Rowe, 93 Wn.2d 277 (1980) (prosecutor's charging policy deemed directory; discretion not curtailed in general)
State v. Pettitt, 93 Wn.2d 288 (1980) (prosecutorial charging discretion; emphasizes discretion in charging decisions)
State v. Krall, 125 Wn.2d 146 (1994) (assessing intent of statutes with 'shall' language; legislative intent controls)
State v. Rowe, 93 Wn.2d 277 (1980) (seealso Rowe for directory interpretation of prosecutorial guidance)
State v. Chavez, 163 Wn.2d 262 (2008) (separation of powers and charging discretion discussed)