Monthly Archives: March 2007

Sherry v. Financial Indemnity Company

by

Docket No. 78667-4  Facts:  Respondent Kevin Sherry was injured by an uninsured motorist, and subsequently sought confirmation of an arbitor’s award determining his damages for the injury in Pierce County Superior Court. Sherry’s insurer, petitioner Financial Indemnity Company (FIC), objected to Sherry’s proposed judgment, claiming an entitlement to offset its under insured motorist coverage obligation by the amount of personal injury obligation it had already paid to Sherry. Continue reading →

Ventenbergs v. Seattle

by

Docket No. 76954-1  Facts: After the respondent city of Seattle enacted Seattle Municipal Code §21.36.030, which prohibits solid waste collection companies other than those contracted by the city from performing construction, demolition, and land clearing waste collection services, petitioner Josef Ventenbergs filed suit against the city in the Superior Court for King County, asserting that the ordinance violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article I §12 of the Washington State Constitution Continue reading →

Washington v. Bergstrom

by

Docket No. 78355-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 55374-7)  Facts:  Petitioner Gordon Bergstrom was convicted of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm in the Superior Court for King County.  At a subsequent sentencing hearing to determine whether Bergstrom should be placed on electronic home monitoring, Bergstrom argued pro se that the state of Washington had miscalculated his offender score insofar as some of his prior convictions arose from the same criminal conduct.  After Bergstrom’s motion for a continuance to present evidence that his convictions arose from the same criminal conduct was denied, the trial court proceeded to sentence Bergstrom.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Bergstrom’s conviction but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing and ordered that each party be allowed to present additional evidence regarding whether Bergstrom’s prior convictions arose from the same criminal conduct. Continue reading →

Spokane School District #81 v. Cowles Publishing Company

by

Docket No. 78574-1  Facts:  Nathan Walters died as the result of an allergic reaction to a peanut butter cookie served to him as part of a school lunch on a field trip sponsored by the respondent Spokane School District #81.  After Walters’ parents indicated their intent to file a wrongful death claim, they and the school district reached a settlement.   In the interim, the Spokesman-Review, a newspaper owned by petitioner Cowles Publishing Company, submitted a request pursuant to the Public Records Act (Washington Revised Code §42.56) for all records related to the school district’s investigation and possible settlement of Nathan Walters’ death.  The school district denied the request on grounds that the requested records are privileged communications and attorney work product and therefore exempt from disclosure under §42.56.  The school district then requested a declaratory judgment that the records are exempt from disclosure while the Spokesman-Review moved for an order to show cause why the school district refused to release the records.  Continue reading →

In re personal restraint of McCarthy

by

Docket No. 79025-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 32702-3)  Facts:  Respondent Donald McCarthy was convicted of third degree assault with sexual motivation and sentenced to a minimum term of twelve months imprisonment and a maximum term of sixty months imprisonment.  Prior to the expiration of McCarthy’s minimum sentence, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board conducted a hearing pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9.95.420(3) to decide if he is eligible for release.  After denying McCarthy’s request to be represented by an attorney, the board found that McCarthy is more likely than not to commit another sex offense if released and added twenty-four months to McCarthy’s minimum term.  McCarthy subsequently filed a personal restraint petition seeking review of the board’s decision in the Washington Court of Appeals.  It asserted that offenders have a right to counsel during hearings conducted pursuant to §9.95.420(3). Continue reading →

Washington v. Everybodytalksabout

by

Docket No. 78514-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 53570-6)  Facts:  Petitioner Darrell Everybodytalksabout was convicted of first and second degree felony murder in the Superior Court for King County.  Prior to his sentencing, an employee of the Department of Corrections interviewed Everybodytalksabout as part of her preparation of the presentence investigation report.  After Everybodytalksabout was sentenced to life in prison, he appealed his conviction, which was ultimately reversed on grounds that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence.  Upon retrial, the trial court admitted testimony by the Department of Corrections employee regarding incriminating statements Everybodytalksabout made during the interview.  After he was once again found guilty, Everybodytalksabout appealed his conviction, asserting that as his attorney was not present during the interview and as he had not been informed of his Miranda rights, he had been denied his right to counsel and testimony regarding the incriminating statements that he made during the interview should therefore not have been admitted.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Everybodytalksabout’s conviction, holding that Everybodytalksabout had not been denied his right to counsel insofar as the Department of Corrections employee had not deliberately elicited the incriminating statements during the interview. Continue reading →