The State of Washington, Respondent v. Nicholas Kjorsvik, Petitioner

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a charging document must allege all essential elements of a crime, including nonstatutory (common law) elements such as the intent to steal in robbery, to satisfy the state and federal constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. For challenges first raised after verdict or on appeal, the court adopted a two-prong federal standard of liberal construction drawn from Hagner: the necessary facts must appear in any form, or by fair construction, within the charging document, and, if the language is vague, the defendant must show actual prejudice; the court also rejected treating such challenges as subject matter jurisdiction defects. Applying that standard, the court held that the robbery information, which tracked the statute and alleged an unlawful taking by force while armed with a knife, fairly apprised Kjorsvik of the intent element and caused no prejudice, and it affirmed the conviction. Justice Utter, joined by Justice Johnson, dissented from the new postverdict standard, contending it abandoned a century of Washington precedent and denied defendants due process.