A murder committed at a college in front of other students was not significantly distinguishable from other murders to warrant imposition of an exceptional sentence above state guidelines. A Washington appellate court reversed the sentence imposed by the trial court and remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with the state guidelines.

After Krystal Way instituted a divorce action, her husband Mark showed up at Krystal's community college and demanded that she halt the divorce proceedings. When she refused, he began shooting her with a semiautomatic pistol. She screamed for help and tried to get away but she could not. In the end, Mark fired 24 shots, nine of which hit Krystal, fatally wounding her. Two shots struck the car of another student. Many students reported emotional trauma from witnessing or hearing the shooting, and one student left school as a result.

Way pleaded guilty to first degree murder and first degree assault with a deadly weapon. The court, based on the aggravating factor of the impact of the shooting on the other students in the area, imposed a sentence greater than the amount set out in the state guidelines. Way appealed, arguing that the imposition of the exceptional sentence was improper.

The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. While the court agreed that the trauma to the students was supported by the evidence, it held that the facts of the murder did not set it apart from many other murders committed in front of others. Had the murder been in front of children, there may have been a basis for finding an aggravating factor. However, since the students were adults, the murder would be analogous to any murder committed in a public place, a circumstance that the legislature was sure to have considered in constructing the state's sentencing guidelines.