State v. Pauling
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
A statute that defines the word “threat” to include the communication of information that is not inherently wrong or unlawful sweeps too broadly to withstand constitutional challenge. Washington’s extortion statute is overbroad because it is not limited to wrongful threats and does not include any defenses that would limit its reach. Thus, it substantially burdens a wide range of protected speech. Therefore, we are compelled to declare the statute invalid and reverse the conviction in this case.
*447FACTS
Molotov Pauling and his girl friend Jane Doe began a relationship in Washington and moved to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. E.J.Y.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. PaulingWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. PaulingWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. EJYCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002