State v. Bartholomew
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentDolliver, C.J.
(dissenting) — I believe the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney does have the discretion not to proceed with the death penalty after the remand of Bartholomew II (State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d 631, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984)).
The majority makes three arguments to justify its position: (1) The statute mandates its result; (2) to hold other*851wise would be an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the prosecuting attorney; and (3) a contrary view would permit the prosecuting attorney to usurp the role of the jury.
I
The majority states the definitive statute is RCW 10.95-.050(4), which reads:
if a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Bullington v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. CampbellWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. BartholomewWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- People v. ChaddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.