Facts: Petitioner Clarence Kintz was convicted of two counts of stalking in violation of Washington Revised Code §9A.46.110 in the Superior Court for Whatcom County as a result of two separate incidents in which Kintz repeatedly followed women in his automobile. Kintz subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that his conduct had not violated §9A.46.110 in either instance insofar as §9A.46.110 only criminalizes patterns of repeated harassment and/or following while isolated incidents gave rise to both of the charges against him. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Kintz’s conviction, holding that Kintz’s actions fell within the scope of §9A.46.110 despite the fact that both occurred over the course of a single day as they both involved multiple discrete instances of following separated by interruptions in contact. Kintz appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Does §9A.46.110 require that instances of harassment and/or following occur over the course of a substantial period of time in order to be criminal?
Conclusion: Justice Alexander’s opinion for the Court affirmed Kintz’s conviction, ruling that repeated harassment and/or following need not occur over the course of a substantial period of time in order to violate §9A.46.110 so long as it involves multiple distinct incidents. As both of the incidents involving Kintz consisted of multiple discrete episodes separated by interruptions in contact, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence supporting Kintz’s conviction.
Docket No. 81688-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 58717-0)
Petitioner: Clarence Kintz
(Counsel: Thomas Matthew Dunn)
Respondent: State of Washington
(Counsel: Eric John Richey, Hilary A. Thomas, and Kimberly Anne Thulin)
Briefs:
Argument: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, August 26th, 2010
Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)
Vote: 7-2
Citation: Pending
Alexander
(Majority)
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
(Dissent)
Chambers
(Dissent)
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.