•  
  •  
 

Authors

Edward Comitz

Abstract

This Comment briefly discusses how Washington’s malicious harassment statute should be interpreted in light of the recent United States Supreme Court case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Because the issues of overbreadth and vagueness are of imminent importance, to Washington’s statute, the majority of this Comment focuses on an analysis of those issues Both issues are discussed in terms of the specific crime of cross burning with the intent to intimidate or harass as proscribed by Section (1) of Washington’s malicious harassment statute. Finally, because the real harms minority victims of hate crimes experience, this Comment argues that Washington’s statute should be construed, whenever possible, in a way that preserves its constitutionality.