# State v. Smith

> Washington Supreme Court · April 24, 1980 · 93 Wash. 2d 329

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564061

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. James H. Smith, Appellant; The State of Washington, Respondent, v. David L. Anderson, Petitioner; The State of Washington, Respondent, v. David J. Redwine, Et Al, Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 24, 1980
- **Citations:** 93 Wash. 2d 329; 610 P.2d 869; 1980 Wash. LEXIS 1285
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Utter
- **Judges:** Rosellini, Dolliver
- **Cited by:** 145 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/9564061

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that marijuana use “creates a euphoric state of intoxication which impedes learning, incentive, efficiency, and, importantly, motor coordination”
- holding that a possible 5-year sentence for felonious possession of marijuana does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

## Opinion text

*354 Utter, C.J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — I concur with the majority in affirming Anderson's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a). Anderson's constitutional challenge to the conviction is limited to a claim of privacy in the performance of the unlawful conduct. Whatever may be the privacy claim of individuals in possession of marijuana for personal use, this claim does not protect those who would manufacture or deliver the substance.
I do agree with Justice Dolliver that the convictions of Smith and the Redwines for possession of marijuana under the terms of RCW 69.50.401(c) (now RCW 69.50.401(d)) violate federal and state prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments.
I do not reach the equal protection and privacy claims of those convicted for possession of marijuana, nor the alternative constitutional claims regarding delivery which are not before us.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564061. Public record. Not legal advice.