Find Legal Information

Opinion Information Sheet

			

State v. McCuistion (David W.)

                                        No. 81644-1

       WIGGINS, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part) -- I agree with the 

majority's result, but not its reasoning.  It is unnecessary to reach the 

constitutional issues in this case because David  McCuistion lacks standing to 

challenge the 2005 amendments.  A person cannot urge the unconstitutionality of 

a statute unless he or she is harmfully affected by the particular feature of the 

challenged statute that violates the constitution.  State v. Lundquist, 60 Wn.2d 

397, 401, 374 P.2d 246 (1962).                 McCuistion challenges only the 2005 

amendments to RCW 71.09.090.  However, he is not harmfully affected by those 

amendments because he would have faced the same result under pre-2005 law; 

this is because he alleges no change in his condition, and some change is 

required even under pre-2005 law.  We have already found the pre-2005 statute 

constitutional.  In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 39, 857 P.2d 989 

(1993).  Thus, I would affirm but decline to reach the constitutional issues. 

No. 81644-1

AUTHOR:
        Justice Charles K. Wiggins

WE CONCUR:

                                               2