State v. Waggoner, No. 42067

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtFINLEY; HAMILTON
Citation80 Wn.2d 7,490 P.2d 1308
Decision Date24 November 1971
Docket NumberNo. 42067
PartiesIn the STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Donald Thomas WAGGONER, Appellant.

Page 7

80 Wn.2d 7
490 P.2d 1308
In the STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Donald Thomas WAGGONER, Appellant.
No. 42067.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
Nov. 24, 1971.

Page 8

[490 P.2d 1309] Ingersoll & Ingersoll, Donald M. Ingersoll, Olympia, for appellant.

Smith Troy, Pros. Atty., Edward F. Schaller, Deputy Pros. Atty., Olympia, for respondent.

FINLEY, Associate Justice.

The defendant in this case appeals from his conviction and sentence for unlawful sale of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). At trial, evidence established that Vonnie Crombie, a police informant, had infiltrated and become an accepted member of appellant's social group. From time to time, Mrs. Crombie let it be known that she was interested in purchasing large quantities of drugs. After a period of initial noncooperation, for reasons that remain in dispute, appellant Waggoner telephoned Mrs. Crombie, told her that he had found a potential seller, and arranged for her to meet the seller. Waggoner was to receive a commission for arranging the sale. On May 24, 1970, Bruce Bird, the unsuspecting seller, transferred the drugs to Mrs. Crombie, and was promptly taken into custody by the police. Appellant was arrested soon after at his place of residence.

Appellant first contends that Laws of 1969, Ex.Sess., ch. 256 (including RCW 69.40.060 under which he was convicted) is unconstitutional because the act is in violation of the requirement of Const. art. 2, § 19, that 'no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'

We do not agree. The act in question is entitled 'AN ACT Relating to crimes and criminal procedures.' It contains

Page 9

provisions designed to (1) increase the confidentiality and reliability of criminal records, (2) reduce the penalties for crimes involving cannabis or marijuana, and (3) establish new crimes involving the distribution of erotic materials to minors.

We are convinced that the title of the bill adequately expresses its subject. See State ex rel. Scofield v. Easterday, 182 Wash. 209, 46 P.2d 1052 (1935). The crucial question is whether the bill itself embraces more than one subject in a manner prohibited by the constitution.

This court has never favored a narrow construction of the term 'subject' as used in Const. art. 2, § 19. We have consistently held that a bill may properly contain one broad subject embracing many sub-subjects or subdivisions. Robison v. Dwyer, 58 Wash.2d 576, 364 P.2d 521 (1961); Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. State, 49 Wash.2d 520, 304 P.2d 676 (1956). The act which appellant attacks, as indicated in its title, covers the broad subject of 'criminal law,' dealing with certain specifically mentioned subdivisions thereof. Such breadth of coverage, if properly titled, is permitted under the law of this state. In In re Donnellan, 49 Wash. 460, 95 P. 1085 (1908), this court held that a general statute enacted as a complete penal code, relating to all ordinary crimes, entitled 'an act relative to crimes and punishment and proceedings in criminal cases,' does not violate the Constitution. The act now before us is similar in breadth, and is equally valid.

Appellant emphasizes that the disparate nature of the provisions constituting Laws of 1969, ch. 256, Ex.Sess., is conducive to legislative 'logrolling,' the practice of drafting and submitting a bill to the legislature in such a form that a legislator is required to vote for something of which he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Washington Federation of State Employees v. State, No. 62082-2
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 31 Agosto 1995
    ...approval of another unrelated law". Fritz, at 333, 517 P.2d 911 (Rosellini, J., dissenting) (quoting State v. Waggoner, 80 Wash.2d 7, 9, 490 P.2d 1308 The requirement that all legislative proposals include no more than one subject is consistent with basic democratic principles. The requirem......
  • State v. Arbogast, 99452-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ...to present an individual with an opportunity to commit a crime," which "does not in itself constitute entrapment." State v. Waggoner, 80 Wn.2d 7, 10-11, 490 P.2d 1308 (1971); see also RCW9A. 16.070(2). I would therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the trial court correctly de......
  • State v. Arbogast, No. 36250-7-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 24 Diciembre 2020
    ...1035 (citing Sorrells v. United States , 287 U.S. 435, 451, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 413 (1932) and State v. Waggoner , 80 Wash.2d 7, 10, 490 P.2d 1308 (1971).¶ 37 The Washington Supreme Court has held that RCW 9A.16.070(1)(b) requires proof that the defendant " ‘was tricked or induced into......
  • State v. Lively, No. 60389-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 29 Agosto 1996
    ...Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451, 53 S.Ct. 210, 216, 77 L.Ed. 413, 86 A.L.R. 249 (1932); State v. Waggoner, 80 Wash.2d 7, 10, 490 P.2d 1308 (1971). See also 21 Am.Jur.2d Crim. L. § 202, at 365 (1981). The defendant must "demonstrate that he was tricked or induced into committing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT