Today's Opinions in Criminal Cases
State v. Adams, No. 82210-7. A King County Sheriff's Deputy stopped a vehicle because the registered owner had an arrest warrant for driving with a revoked license. Coryell Adams, the registered owner, was the driver and sole occupant in the car. When stopped, he got out of the car, locked it, and walked several steps away, all in violation of the officers orders to get back into the vehicle. After Adams was arrested, officers searched the car and found cocaine. Adams moved to suppress that evidence; the trial court denied the motion and was affirmed on appeal.
While awaiting review, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gant, which limits searches incident to arrest. The State filed a supplemental brief conceding that Gant applies here, but arguing for the court to apply the "good faith" exception.
Today, in a unanimous opinion by the Chief Justice, the Court declines to apply the good faith exception. The Court puts itself in its place, reasoning that while reliance on statutes that are subsequently struck down may warrant a good faith exception, reliance on the Court's erstwhile case law does not. (briefs, argument)
State v. Turner, No. 81626-3 (consolidated with State v. Faagata, No. 82336-7). In these cases, each defendant was convicted of two charges stemming from a single event. The trial courts set aside the lesser conviction to avoid violating double jeopardy, 
but issued an order that if the remaining conviction was overturned on appeal, the lesser conviction could be reinstated. The trial courts were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice James Johnson, the Court first reviews federal case law, which holds that double jeopardy does allow trial and conviction on lesser included offenses and "does not require permanent, unconditional vacation of the lesser of two convictions for the same criminal conduct...." However, the Court today reverses the Court of Appeals, and holds that the trial courts conditional vacation of the lesser offenses violated double jeopardy.
... a trial court must avoid (i) entering judgment on a defendant's lesser conviction and (ii) referencing that conviction when sentencing a defendant convicted of multiple crimes for the same criminal conduct. This is precisely what Turner and Faagata demanded, but did not receive, at trial and on appeal -- vacation of their lesser convictions without reference to any validity attributable to those convictions.
The Court notes that convictions for lesser included offenses that have been vacated can later be revived.
However, the lesser conviction, once vacated, and prior to reinstatement, is not "a valid conviction" and is not "entitled to some weight," contrary to the trial courts' rulings in these cases. ... In the future, the better practice will be for trial courts to refrain from any reference to the possible reinstatement of a vacated lesser conviction.
