Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Bassett

Washington Supreme Court
428 P.3d 343 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole or early release is categorically unconstitutional as cruel punishment under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution.


Facts:

  • When Brian Bassett was 16 years old, his parents kicked him out of their home.
  • Bassett was living in a 'shack' with an acquaintance, Nicholaus McDonald.
  • With McDonald's assistance, Bassett entered his parents' home and shot both of them.
  • Bassett's younger brother was drowned in a bathtub during the same incident.
  • At a resentencing hearing nearly two decades later, Bassett presented evidence of his rehabilitation, including earning a GED, a college scholarship, maintaining a clean prison record for over a decade, and getting married.
  • A psychologist testified that at the time of the crimes, Bassett suffered from an adjustment disorder related to homelessness and a strained relationship with his parents.

Procedural Posture:

  • In 1996, Brian Bassett was convicted of three counts of aggravated first degree murder in a state trial court.
  • The trial court imposed the then-mandatory sentence of three consecutive terms of life without parole.
  • Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, Bassett was granted a resentencing hearing.
  • In 2015, the trial court resentenced Bassett, again imposing three consecutive life-without-parole sentences after considering mitigating factors related to his youth.
  • Bassett (appellant) appealed the new sentence to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two (an intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that life without parole for any juvenile offender is categorically a cruel punishment under the state constitution.
  • The State of Washington (petitioner) appealed that decision to the Washington Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which granted review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole violate the Washington Constitution's ban on cruel punishment (article I, section 14)?


Opinions:

Majority - Owens, J.

Yes. Sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole or early release constitutes cruel punishment and is therefore unconstitutional under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution. The court adopts the 'categorical bar analysis' over Washington's traditional 'Fain' proportionality test for this type of claim, as it better considers the unique characteristics of the juvenile offender class. Under this analysis, there is a clear national consensus moving away from life without parole for juveniles. Furthermore, the court's independent judgment confirms that children are less criminally culpable than adults due to their lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, and their capacity for change makes it nearly impossible to determine at sentencing that they are irreparably corrupt. The penological goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are not served by a sentence that denies all hope and forecloses the possibility of a juvenile's demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.


Dissenting - Stephens, J.

No. The Washington statute allowing a court to impose life without parole on a 16- or 17-year-old offender after considering mitigating factors of youth is constitutional. The majority improperly abandons the state's traditional 'Fain' proportionality test, which is flexible enough to incorporate the youth-related factors required by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama. Miller itself did not create a categorical ban on life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders; it only required an individualized sentencing process where youth is considered, a process Washington's legislature enacted. By creating a categorical ban, the majority goes beyond what federal precedent requires and ignores state precedent that upholds judicial sentencing discretion, effectively legislating from the bench.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that the Washington Constitution provides greater protection for juvenile offenders than the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By creating a categorical prohibition on life without parole sentences for juveniles, the court removes all judicial discretion to impose such a sentence, regardless of the crime's severity. This ruling significantly alters juvenile sentencing in Washington, ensuring that every juvenile offender, even those convicted of aggravated first degree murder, will have an eventual opportunity for release. The decision solidifies a trend in Washington jurisprudence of recognizing the diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change in young offenders.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Bassett (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"