# State v. Cross

> Washington Supreme Court · March 30, 2006 · 156 Wash. 2d 580

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713342

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington v. Dayva Cross
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 30, 2006
- **Citations:** 156 Wash. 2d 580
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alexander
- **Judges:** Alexander, Chambers, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 135 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713342

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming death sentence even though (1)"the death penalty has not been sought in cases at least as brutal," (2) the single aggravating circumstance of multiple victims as part of a common scheme or plan does not weigh either for or against finding of proportionality, (3) the …
- acknowledging uncertainty over whether the legislature intended this court to include in the comparison database death penalty sentences later reversed, but resolving that "doubt" adversely to the defendant

## Opinion text

¶145 (concurring) — The majority opinion lavishes praise on the “highly respected, honorable, and thoughtful” prosecutor who negotiated an agreement whereby he did not seek the death penalty against Gary Ridgway in exchange for the serial killer providing certain information. Majority at 622. With equal fervor, the dissent asserts that there was “nothing rational” about the prosecutor’s plea deal with Ridgway. Dissent at 648 n.24.
Alexander, C.J.
*641 ¶146 This court should refrain from commenting on the qualities of individual prosecutors, as that is a matter properly within the purview of the public and not justices. Ridgway’s sentence, and the considerations that led to the sparing of his life, are not before us. Therefore, while I concur with the majority’s result, I write separately simply to express my view that both the majority and dissenting opinions needlessly and improperly delve into matters of prosecutorial discretion. While we may have personal views about controversies beyond our docket, such views do not belong in the decisions announced by this court.
Fairhurst, J., concurs with Alexander, C.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713342. Public record. Not legal advice.