The Washington Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to dual convictions in a domestic violence case involving gun threats, ruling that separate charges for assault and harassment based on the same conduct do not violate double jeopardy protections.

In *State v. Owen Gale Ray*, decided Sept. 11, 2025, the court addressed whether Owen Gale Ray's convictions for both second-degree assault with a deadly weapon and felony harassment for threatening his wife with a gun constituted multiple punishments for "the same offense" in violation of state and federal constitutional protections.

Ray was convicted on both charges following an incident in which he threatened his wife with a firearm. He challenged the convictions under the double jeopardy clauses of both the Washington State Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguing that the dual punishments violated the prohibition against multiple prosecutions for the same offense.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Yu, acknowledged that Ray's assault and harassment convictions were "the same in fact" because both were based on identical conduct - the threatening of his wife with a gun. However, the court applied established precedent requiring that offenses must be "the same in law" as well as fact to qualify as the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Citing the 2019 decision *State v. Arndt*, the court explained that offenses are the same in law only when they contain identical elements. The analysis focuses on whether each offense requires proof of facts that the other does not, applying what courts call the "same elements test."

In Ray's case, the court determined that second-degree assault with a deadly weapon and felony harassment, as charged and proved, are not the same in law because each provision requires proof of distinct facts that the other does not require. The court referenced *In re Personal Restraint of Orange*, a 2003 Washington Supreme Court decision, in applying this legal standard.

The assault charge required the state to prove that Ray committed an assault - defined as an intentional attempt or offer with force or violence to do bodily harm to another - while armed with a deadly weapon. The harassment charge, meanwhile, required proof that Ray knowingly threatened to kill another person, with the threat being made under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to fear that the threat would be carried out.

While both charges arose from the same threatening conduct, the distinct legal elements meant they addressed different aspects of Ray's criminal behavior. The assault charge focused on the attempted or threatened physical harm while armed with a weapon, while the harassment charge specifically targeted the threatening communication itself.

The ruling demonstrates how Washington courts analyze double jeopardy challenges in cases involving overlapping charges. The "same in law" requirement serves as a key protection for prosecutors' charging decisions when a single criminal act violates multiple statutory provisions with different elements.

Ray's case reflects broader issues in domestic violence prosecutions, where a single incident often involves conduct that violates multiple criminal statutes. Prosecutors frequently bring multiple charges to ensure appropriate punishment and to provide backup options if one charge fails at trial.

The decision also illustrates the Washington Supreme Court's continued application of the federal "same elements" test for double jeopardy analysis, rather than adopting alternative approaches used in some other jurisdictions. This test, derived from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in *Blockburger v. United States*, remains the dominant framework for analyzing whether multiple charges violate double jeopardy protections.

The court's ruling was issued as an en banc decision, meaning all justices of the Washington Supreme Court participated in the decision rather than a smaller panel. This designation often indicates that the case presented questions of particular importance to state law development.

For criminal defense attorneys, the decision reinforces the high bar for successful double jeopardy challenges in cases involving multiple charges arising from single incidents. The ruling suggests that such challenges will typically fail unless the charges have substantially identical elements.

The decision provides clarity for prosecutors handling domestic violence cases involving weapons, confirming that charges for both the threatening conduct and the assault-related behavior can proceed simultaneously without constitutional violation.

Ray's case joins a line of Washington precedents defining the boundaries of double jeopardy protection in cases involving multiple charges from single criminal episodes, providing guidance for future prosecutions involving similar fact patterns in domestic violence and other criminal contexts.