Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,720 chars

2. Miller – Trial Court’s Gate-Keeping Function

In State v. Miller, the Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court or the jury should

resolve a requirement of a conviction that was not an element of the offense. 156 Wn.2d 23, 24,

31, 123 P.3d 827 (2005). In that case, the court held that the validity of the no-contact order is

not an element or an implied element of the crime of violating such an order. Id. at 27-31. The

court stated, “The legislature likely did not include validity as an element of the crime because

issues concerning the validity of an order normally turn on questions of law. Questions of law

are for the court, not the jury, to resolve.” Id. at 31.

The court further stated that “issues relating to the validity of a court order . . . are

uniquely within the province of the court.” Id. The court concluded, “The court, as part of its

gate-keeping function, should determine as a threshold matter whether the order alleged to be

violated is applicable and will support the crime charged. Orders that are not applicable to the

crime should not be admitted.” Id.

In State v. Case, the court adopted the same rule with regard to a statute elevating

violation of a no-contact order to a felony when an offender has at least two prior convictions for

2
Smith does not argue that legal efficacy is an implied, nonstatutory element of forgery. An
implied element is one that either “fit[s] within longstanding principles of law or [is] derived
from our reasoned judgment as to legislative intent.” State v. Miller, 156 Wn.2d 23, 28, 123 P.3d
827 (2005). We do not address this issue.

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 51946-1-II