Docket No. 85658-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63299-0)
Synopsis: Whether the city of Seattle may be liable in an action for wrongful death brought by the survivor of a murder victim based on the failure of police to confiscate ammunition while detaining the murderer for questioning just before the murder occurred.
Monthly Archives: March 2012
In re Custody of A.F.J.
Docket No. 86188-9 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63919-6)
Synopsis: Whether a foster parent who is also the former intimate partner of the child’s biological mother may seek the status of a de facto parent.
Synopsis: Whether a foster parent who is also the former intimate partner of the child’s biological mother may seek the status of a de facto parent.
In re the Custody of A.F.J.
Docket No. 86188-9
Synopsis: The court must decide if service as a foster parent alone precludes a finding of de facto parentage.
Synopsis: The court must decide if service as a foster parent alone precludes a finding of de facto parentage.
State v. Ortega
Docket No. 85788-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64008-9)
Synopsis: Whether the defendant in a misdemeanor drug prosecution was lawfully arrested when the officer who witnessed the crime did not make the arrest but directed other officers who did not witness the crime to make the arrest.
Synopsis: Whether the defendant in a misdemeanor drug prosecution was lawfully arrested when the officer who witnessed the crime did not make the arrest but directed other officers who did not witness the crime to make the arrest.
Bain v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Docket No. 86206-1 Synopsis: May a party be a lawful beneficiary under WA’s Deed of Trust Act if it never held the promissory note secured by the deed of trust? Continue reading
State v. Hahn
Docket No. 86427-6 Synopsis: Aaron Hahn asked someone to make a girl “disappear” or appear as if she “never existed” or “just be gone.” Hahn was convicted of solicitation to commit first degree murder. Continue reading
Ruvalcaba v. Baek
Docket No. 85732-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63572-7)
Synopsis: Whether a landowner who causes his property to become landlocked may seek to condemn a private way of necessity under RCW 8.24.010, and if so, whether such an action may be barred by the statute of limitations or laches.
Synopsis: Whether a landowner who causes his property to become landlocked may seek to condemn a private way of necessity under RCW 8.24.010, and if so, whether such an action may be barred by the statute of limitations or laches.
State v. Rose
Docket No. 85791-1 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 28403-4)
Synopsis: Whether for purposes of the crime of possession of stolen property consisting of an access device, an unactivated credit card received in a mail solicitation constitutes an “access device.”
Synopsis: Whether for purposes of the crime of possession of stolen property consisting of an access device, an unactivated credit card received in a mail solicitation constitutes an “access device.”
State v. Hunley
Docket No. 86135-8 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39676-9)
Synopsis: Whether RCW 9.94A.500(1) and .530(2), which provide that a prosecutor’s criminal history summary is prima facie evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions, and that a defendant’s “acknowledgment” of criminal history includes not objecting to the prosecutor’s summary, unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove prior convictions for sentencing purposes.
Synopsis: Whether RCW 9.94A.500(1) and .530(2), which provide that a prosecutor’s criminal history summary is prima facie evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions, and that a defendant’s “acknowledgment” of criminal history includes not objecting to the prosecutor’s summary, unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove prior convictions for sentencing purposes.
State v. Coristine
Docket No. 86145-5 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 28868-4)
Synopsis: Whether, in a prosecution for second degree rape by means of intercourse with a person unable to consent due to mental incapacity or physical helplessness, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of reasonable belief that the victim was capable of consent, even though the defendant objected to the instruction and asserted only the defense that the State could not prove that the victim was incapacitated.
Synopsis: Whether, in a prosecution for second degree rape by means of intercourse with a person unable to consent due to mental incapacity or physical helplessness, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of reasonable belief that the victim was capable of consent, even though the defendant objected to the instruction and asserted only the defense that the State could not prove that the victim was incapacitated.