(acknowledging that Richmond,Hilt, and White are still controlling precedent).
This is just such a case. Here, the crime charged is disinterring cremains by a
cemetery operator pursuant to an order from a municipality without informing next
of kin. Neither the majority nor the State cites to any long-standing common law
history or background suggesting that such actions are unlawful. Thus,the common
law fix announced in Smith and Miller is inapplicable. Instead, the general rule of
Richmond, Hilt, and White—^that undefined phrases like "lawful authority" or
"without lawful authority" are vague and ambiguous—controls.
12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div.,^o. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
In sum, after looking to RCW 68.50.140's plain language, statutory context,
and related cases that might help interpret the critical phrase "without lawful
authority," we find no definite answer. The majority's interpretation is certainly
plausible despite its complications. But Southwick's interpretation is also plausible.
Under Campbell & Gwinn,the statute is ambiguous. 146 Wn.2d at 12. That compels
us to look to other "aids to construction." Id.
111. Other "aids to construction" bar application of this felony statute to
Southwick's conduct
Our case law has been inconsistent on whether the next"aid" we turn to when
interpreting a criminal statute is legislative history or the rule oflenity. See Conover,
183 Wn.2d at 711-12(applying the rule oflenity after finding the statute ambiguous
(citing Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d at 600-01)); State v. Evans, 111 Wn.2d 186, 192-93, 298
P.3d 724 (2013)(using legislative history to resolve an ambiguity before applying