¶1(concurring) — I concur in the holding that prosecution of Jules Devin does not abate because he failed to timely appeal his conviction. However, the majority’s discussion of the merits of the doctrine of abatement ab initio is obiter dicta in its entirety. “The issue to which the statement relates was not before the court and, therefore, the statement did not and could not announce our adherence to such a rule.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Funkhouser, 52 Wn.2d 370, 374, 325 P.2d 297 (1958). The doctrine of abatement ab initio reflects the “ ‘fundamental principle . . . that the object of criminal punishment is to punish the criminal, and not to punish his family.’ ” State v. Furth, 82 Wash. 665, 668, 144 P. 907 (1914) (quoting United States v. Pomeroy, 152 F. 279, 282 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1907), rev’d *173on other grounds sub nom. United States v. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R., 164 F. 324 (2d Cir. 1908)). Accordingly, prosecution must cease with the death of the accused. Abatement ab initio is a venerable fixture of Washington law, and it remains the* law of the State.
158 Wash. 2d 157
State v. Devin
Decided August 24, 2006
Washington Supreme Court · decided 2006-08-24
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2011
8 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“the majority's discussion of the merits of the doctrine of abatement ab initio is obiter dicta in its entirety”
quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Webb
Relies on State v. Furth · United States v. Pomeroy · 52 Wash. 2d 370 - State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Funkhouser
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2006-08-24
View the full empirical analysis of this case →