SEATTLE — An evenly split ruling from the Washington Supreme Court on Thursday had lawyers scratching their heads.
The court issued a 4-4 ruling in the case of a Shoreline man who had been convicted of obstructing police. Justice Barbara Madsen did not participate in the case, and no temporary justice was appointed to take her place.
Normally in such a split ruling, the lower court’s decision would stand, and that may be the ultimate result of Thursday’s ruling. But Justice Steven Gonzalez’s opinion was designated the lead opinion, and it ordered the conviction vacated and sent the case back to the trial court.
Justice Debra Stephens’ opinion, which would have upheld the conviction, was designated the dissent.
Unlike in some prior cases that have involved evenly split decisions, the court did not provide any guidance about how the result should be interpreted. That left several lawyers and law professors confused. Several said they didn’t know how a 4-4 split could result in a conviction being overturned or whether the conviction had, in fact, been overturned.