State v Dwight Dahl :: 139 Wn2d 678
Category: Sentencing Guidelines
Dwight Dahl was before the Supreme Court to challenge a Superior Court ruling which revoked his alternative sentence. Dahl earlier confessed to and pleaded guilty to Rape of a Child in the First Degree. The court sentenced him to a standard range sentence of ninety-five months but suspended all but six months under the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) because this was his first convicted offense.
Dahl became a particularly difficult case for the assigned counselor. Among other things, it was noted that he allegedly exposed himself to two young girls and that he had given a note to a bank teller that “contained specific descriptions of [his] offense, his recent fantasies, and his obsession with the JonBenet Ramsey case.” [at 681]. So the State moved to revoke his suspended sentence. Judge Burrage entered a judgment revoking his suspended sentence and reinstating the original term of confinement.
The Appellate Court upheld the Superior Court decision but the Supreme Court remanded the case for a retrial. They determined that Dahl’s due process rights were violated because he was not allowed to confront his accusers, i.e. the two girls in the exposure incident. Three of the justices agreed but felt that the case should have been dismissed based upon constitutional issues. In general, I could agree with the constitutional principles, however we differ in the scope of constitutional jurisdiction. First, this man was not innocent, nor was there any doubt of his guilt. Thus his constitutional protection is dubious at best. Second, reading through the court record, Judge Burrage did not base her decision upon the exposure incident. She based the decision upon the testimony of the counselor, who was examined and cross examined at the trial, and the letter, which was submitted as evidence.
Furthermore, the flaw may be in the statute that it would allow a mitigated sentence for a first time offender who admitted to having sex with a child. Certainly, the law should have leniency for misdemeanors and for those convicted but some elements remain that may leave doubts. However, for the person who leaves no doubt and a serious felony is committed upon another person, especially a helpless person, there should be no clemency. The key should be thrown away. Mat 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Agid, Susan | |
| pass | Becker, Mary Kay | |
| pass | Burrage, Jeanette | |
| pass | Kennedy, Faye | |
| pass | Summers, Ann Marie | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Gordon, Kimberly | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Link, Gregory | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Sanders, Richard | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Sweeney, Dennis | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil |