During its trip to Montesano, the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case involving triple-murderer Brian Bassett of McCleary.

The court was asked by Grays Harbor County whether they had to reconsider Bassett’s sentence as the court of appeals had ruled. The court of appeals ruled that the sentence violates the constitution.

Bassett, now in his late 30s, was convicted in 1996 of killing his parents and 5-year-old brother in their McCleary home. He was 16 at the time of the killings. He was tried as an adult and convicted of three counts of aggravated first-degree murder, which can carry the death penalty. But juveniles in Washington are not subject to capital punishment and then Superior Court Judge Gordon Godfrey sentenced Bassett to life without the possibility of parole, mandatory at the time.

Bassett’s case had already been remanded for sentencing once before in 2015. That time, the Appeals Court said the lower court needed to consider factors such as a difficult upbringing and progress he had made in rehabilitation. Grays Harbor Superior Court Judge David Edwards heard the case and did not find that a lighter sentence was warranted, imposing three, consecutive life without parole sentences.

Following the appeals court decision that Bassett should be resentenced, Grays Harbor County Prosecuting Attorney Katie Svoboda asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.

King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Joseph served as a Special Deputy for Grays Harbor County delivering the oral arguments to the court.

Joseph said there is no basis for state constitutional analysis in this case at all, citing past cases.

“This sets out a legal question, and it’s up the Legislature to decide what punishment fits this crime,” Joseph said.

“By holding that no court may propose life without the possibility of release on any juvenile convicted of aggravated first-degree murder, no matter how egregious the crime and no matter how mature the juvenile actually is, the court of appeals improperly usurped both the role of the legislature to set punishments for crimes and the discretion of trial courts to impose life sentences where circumstances truly merit that punishment.”

Bassett’s crimes, Joseph noted, were not a crime of passion nor were they misdirected.

“In this case, the resentencing judge did consider evidence of Mr. Bassett’s attempts at rehabilitation as well as the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of Mr. Bassett’s life at the time,” Joseph said. “It is very easy to distinguish this case from the sorts of cases that the U.S. Supreme Court was concerned with… What we have here is completely different.”

According to RCW 10.95.030, “Any person convicted of the crime of aggravated first degree murder for an offense committed when the person is at least sixteen years old but less than eighteen years old shall be sentenced to a maximum term of life imprisonment and a minimum term of total confinement of no less than twenty-five years. A minimum term of life may be imposed, in which case the person will be ineligible for parole or early release.”

That section of RCW also notes that the court must take into account mitigating factors.

Joseph also noted that there wasn’t “necessarily” any evidence of a change in the national consensus about life without parole in a case like Bassett’s.

In response, Bassett’s representation Eric Lindell said the state’s allowance of life without parole for a juvenile is against Article 1 section 14 of the US Constitution.

Lindell also noted there is a changing consensus on life without parole for juveniles.

“At least nationally. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that,” Lindell said. “Right now there are 20 states that have outlawed this punishment, and the District of Columbia did it, and there are five that no longer have the punishment at all.”

Lindell said the state consensus also is changing.

When asked what the appropriate sentence would be for Bassett, Lindell said “22 years.” However, that was specifically regarding Bassett. Lindell said he would suggest 25 years as “fair” for other offenders.

“Put it in the hands of a parole board which is better suited because they can do different types of investigation than a court can,” Lindell said.

Lindell argued that the sentencing judge did not consider mitigating factors in setting the life without parole sentence.

“You can’t just focus on the offense because these are kids — they’re juveniles. You have to focus on the offender,” Lindell said. “You have to focus on their maturity, their ability to make decisions and whether or not rehabilitation is possible for them.”

The law setting a minimum sentence of life without parole for an offender between the ages of 16 and 18 is unconstitutional, Lindell argued. RCW 10.95.030 sets a minimum sentence of 25 years for an offender under the age of 16.

“If Mr. Bassett was 127 days younger, we wouldn’t even be here,” Lindell said. “The minimum sentence was life without parole, the maximum sentence was life without parole, the only sentence was life without parole, and there is no way to get around that. He is not going to get out. Ever. He is going to die in prison.”

The state Supreme Court did not issue a ruling and heard only oral arguments during the hearing.

The justices fielded questions from the public after the hearing had finished. Those questions were not allowed to be about any current cases before the state Supreme Court.