Facts: Petitioner Eric Bahl was convicted of second degree rape and burglary in the Superior Court for Snohomish County and sentenced to a term of imprisonment to be followed by a life term of community custody. Bahl subsequently appealed his sentence, asserting that the conditions attached to his community custody, which prohibit Bahl from possessing or accessing pornographic materials, from frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material, and from possessing sexual stimulus material for his particular deviancy, are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §3 of the Washington State Constitution. The Washington Court of Appeals declined to hear Bahl’s vagueness challenge on grounds that the challenge is not ripe for review insofar as Bahl remains imprisoned and has not been accused of violating any of the conditions. Bahl appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is Bahl’s vagueness challenge to the conditions attached to his community custody ripe for review?

If so, are the conditions unconstitutionally vague?

Conclusion: Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court vacated Bahl’s sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing, concluding that Bahl’s vagueness challenge is sufficiently ripe for review given that the issues raised by Bahl’s challenge are primarily legal and do not require further factual development and that two of the three conditions attached to Bahl’s community custody are unconstitutionally vague. In particular, the Court found that the condition prohibiting Bahl from possessing or accessing pornographic materials is vague insofar as it does not define what types of materials are pornographic and that the condition prohibiting Bahl from possessing sexual stimulus material for his particular deviancy is vague insofar as Bahl has not been diagnosed with any specific deviancy. However, the Court also found that the condition prohibiting Bahl from frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material is not vague insofar as it represents a complete ban prohibiting Bahl from ever visiting such establishments under any circumstances.

Docket No. 79988-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 56812-4)

Petitioner: Eric Bahl

(Counsel: Andrew Peter Zinner)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Mary Kathleen Webber)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Prevailing Party: Eric Bahl (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen
(Majority)

Sanders
(Partial)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Concurs)

Stephens