Docket No. 77472-2 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 30402-3)  Facts:  Respondent Brian Lord was convicted of first degree murder in the Superior Court for Kitsap County after a trial in which spectators were permitted to wear buttons bearing photos of the victim.  Lord appealed his conviction, asserting that the buttons were inherently prejudicial and that the trial court erred in failing to remove them from the courtroom.  Lord also asserted that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of a bloodhound handler who tracked the victim’s scent following her disappearance insofar as this testimony would have contradicted the state of Washington’s theory of the crime.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Lord’s conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78166-4  Facts:  Petitioner Brian Womac was convicted of homicide by abuse, second degree felony murder, and first degree assault in the Superior Court for Pierce County.  The trial court subsequently sentenced Womac to an exceptional sentence on the homicide by abuse conviction but did not sentence Womac on the second degree felony murder and first degree assault convictions in order to avoid subjecting him to double jeopardy.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed Womac’s exceptional sentence on grounds that it was based upon findings of fact made by the judge rather than by the jury.  The Washington Court of Appeals also directed the trial court to conditionally dismiss Womac’s second degree felony murder and first degree assault convictions pending appellate review.  Womac appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that the second degree felony murder and first degree assault convictions subjected him to double jeopardy and should have been unconditionally dismissed. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77858-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 52622-7)  Facts:  Richard Graham and Michele Cunliffe are divorced and share custody of their two children equally.  After both Graham and Cunliffe’s income changed and one of the children moved into a new age category on the child support schedule, the state of Washington petitioned for modification of their parenting plan.  In response, Graham petitioned to have his support payment modified pursuant to the support formula used in In re marriage of Arvey, a case that involved a parenting plan in which each parent had custody of one of two children.  The commissioner for the Superior Court for King County declined to apply the Arvey support formula to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally and instead extrapolated Graham’s child support obligation from Washington Revised Code §26.19’s economic table, which does not calculate child support obligations for parents with monthly incomes in excess of $7,000.  Graham appealed the commissioner’s decision, asserting that it imposed an inequitable burden upon him.  The superior court reversed the commissioner’s decision and based its revision of Graham’s child support obligation upon the Arvey support formula. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77890-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 31892-0)  Facts:  Petitioner Robert McCausland and his wife, respondent Angela McCausland, entered into a reconciliation agreement following their separation under which Robert McCausland agreed to pay his wife a monthly sum for spousal maintenance and child support.  When Robert McCausland’s financial circumstances changed, he petitioned for termination of the spousal maintenance payments and modification of the child support payments.  The trial court ruled that the reconciliation agreement is enforceable.  Robert McCausland appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in extrapolating his child support obligation from Washington Revised Code §26.19’s economic table, which does not calculate child support obligations for parents with monthly incomes in excess of $7,000. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77767-5 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 29965-8)  Facts:  Petitioner Nicholas Hacheney was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for killing his wife in the course of arson, and was sentenced to life without the possibility of release under Wash. Rev. Code §10.95.020(11)(e). Hacheney appealed, arguing that the jury was improperly instructed on the aggravating factor and that there was insufficient evidence to show that he committed the murder in the course of arson because his wife was dead before he set fire to the house. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77974-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 54017-3)  Facts:  American Discount Corporation assigned a judgment obtained against respondent Austin Shepherd and his wife Joy in 1986 to petitioner United Collection Service, Inc., which in 1996 obtained an order extending the judgment for ten years pursuant to Washington Revised Code §6.17.020.  After United Collection Service subsequently moved to appoint an appraiser for the Shepherds’ real property upon which an execution had been levied, Shepherd moved to set aside the order extending the judgment as void.  Shepherd cited J.D. Tan, L.L.C. v. Summers, in which the Washington Court of Appeals held that, prior to its 2002 amendment, §6.17.020 only authorized original creditors to obtain orders extending judgments. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77281-9 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 21148-7)  Facts:  Petitioner Kendra Watt was convicted of criminal mistreatment and the possession and manufacture of methamphetamine after a trial in which out of court statements made by her husband were admitted into evidence.  Watt appealed her convictions, asserting that the admission of her husband’s out of court statements violated her right under the 6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution to be confronted with the witnesses against her.  The Washington Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Washington both affirmed Watt’s convictions.  However, the United States Supreme Court vacated Watt’s convictions and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Crawford v. Washington.  The Washington Court of Appeals once again affirmed Watt’s convictions, holding that while the admission of Watt’s husband’s out of court statements violated Watt’s right to confrontation, the error was harmless as overwhelming evidence supported her convictions. Continue reading →