State v. Bahl

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that vagueness challenges to community custody conditions may be raised for the first time on appeal and that sufficiently ripe preenforcement challenges to sentencing conditions are reviewable. Applying the due process vagueness doctrine, it found the conditions barring possession or access of 'pornographic materials' and possessing or controlling 'sexual stimulus material for your particular deviancy' unconstitutionally vague, while upholding the condition barring frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material. It reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing. Justice Sanders concurred in result only, arguing the frequenting condition is also vague; Justice Johnson concurred, emphasizing that a clearly drafted restriction on sexually explicit material would be constitutional on remand.