noting that Washington’s stalking statute requires person to “intentionally and repeatedly harass[]” or “repeatedly follow[]” another and defines “‘repeatedly’” to mean “‘two or more separate occasions’”
How later courts described this case
- noting that Washington’s stalking statute requires person to “intentionally and repeatedly harass[]” or “repeatedly follow[]” another and defines “‘repeatedly’” to mean “‘two or more separate occasions’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chambers, J.
¶75 (concurrence in dissent) — I agree with Justice Sanders that RCW 9A.46.110 is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation and that the rule of lenity requires that we find for the defendant. Therefore, I would reverse.