# State v. Strauss

> Washington Supreme Court · July 9, 1992 · 119 Wash. 2d 401

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550780

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Gordon Michael Strauss, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 9, 1992
- **Citations:** 119 Wash. 2d 401; 832 P.2d 78; 1992 Wash. LEXIS 196
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Andersen
- **Judges:** Johnson
- **Cited by:** 132 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550780

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "a mental health care professional's opinion is necessary to determine a defendant's amenability to treatment" (emphasis added)
- affirming trial court’s admission of victim’s statement regarding sexual assault made over three hours after assault under the excited utterance exception

## Opinion text

*422 Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express my disagreement with the Court of Appeals determination in its published opinion that Mr. Strauss did not demonstrate deliberate cruelty toward his rape victim. State v. Strauss, 54 Wn. App. 408, 419 , 773 P.2d 898 (1989). Based on this record I could not have found that the trial judge's finding in that regard was "clearly erroneous". It appears that the conduct of Mr. Strauss was significantly more egregious and serious than typical of the crime of rape in the second degree. State v. Hicks, 61 Wn. App. 923, 928 , 812 P.2d 893 (1991); State v. Holyoak, 49 Wn. App. 691, 696 , 745 P.2d 515 (1987), review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1007 (1988). Had this issue been before us, I would have found that deliberate cruelty on the part of Mr. Strauss was demonstrated and that it justified the imposition of the exceptional sentence in this case. The State did not, however, cross-appeal on this issue and, as the majority opinion correctly notes, the law of the case doctrine prevents our considering it at this point.
Brachtenbach and Guy, JJ., concur with Andersen, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550780. Public record. Not legal advice.