Daily Archives: Thursday, October 19, 2006

Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc.

by

Docket No. 77985-6  Facts:  Respondent Herbert Nelson purchased an automobile from petitioner Appleway Chevrolet, Inc.  In addition to the agreed upon sale price, Appleway Chevrolet charged Nelson $79.23 to recoup the business and occupation tax that it owed as a result of the sale.  Nelson subsequently filed a class action in the Superior Court for Spokane County requesting a declaratory judgment that Appleway Chevrolet’s attempt to shift its business and occupation tax burden onto its customers is unlawful. Continue reading →

Washington v. Evans

by

Docket No. 77700-4  Facts:  Petitioner Danny Evans was convicted of the manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found in a briefcase in Evans’ automobile.  Evans appealed his conviction, asserting that the warrantless search of the briefcase was unlawful.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Evans’ conviction, holding that Evans relinquished any privacy interest that he had in the briefcase when he denied ownership of it to the police officer who conducted the search. Continue reading →

Washington v. Watt

by

Docket No. 77281-9  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 6th 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 →