Facts: Petitioner Leo Bunker was convicted of violating a no contact order in contravention of Washington Revised Code §26.50.110 in the Superior Court for King County after a traffic stop revealed that Lillian Hiatt, whom Bunker was prohibited by court order from contacting, was a passenger in his automobile. Bunker subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that a violation of a no contact order must also constitute an act requiring mandatory arrest under Washington Revised Code §10.31.100(2)(a) or (b), which require mandatory arrest in response to violations of no contact orders that involve violence, threats of violence, or occur in specifically prohibited places, in order to be a criminal offense and as his contact with Hiatt had involved neither violence nor the threat thereof and had not occurred in a specifically prohibited place, it was not a crime. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Bunker’s conviction, holding that violating a no contact order is a crime regardless of whether it also requires mandatory arrest under §10.31.100(2)(a) or (b). Bunker appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Are only those violations of §26.50.110 that are subject to mandatory arrest under §10.31.100(2)(a) and (b) crimes?
Conclusion: Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for the Court concluded that the mandatory arrest provisions of §10.31.100(2)(a) and (b) do not constitute elements of the crime of violating a no contact order and that any violation of a no contact order is, depending upon the context, either a gross misdemeanor or a felony. Thus, the Court affirmed Bunker’s conviction.
Docket No. 81921-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59322-6)
Petitioner: Leo Bunker
(Counsel: Christopher Gibson)
Respondent: State of Washington
(Counsel: Randi J. Austell and Melody M. Crick)
Briefs:
- Appellant Williams Brief
- Bunker Appellant Brief
- Bunker Reply
- Bunker Statement of Additional Authority Dated 12-24-07
- Bunker Statement of Additional Authority Dated 12-31-07
- Motion for Disc Review in Vincent
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner Vincent Brief
- Reply of Petitioner Vincent
- Respondent Bunker Brief
- Respondent Vincent Brief
- State's Supplemental Brief
- Statement of Additional Authority
- Statement of Additional Authority Dated 2-19-10
- Statement of Additional Authority Dated 2-22-10
- Statement of Additional Authority Dated 5-27-09
- Statement of Grounds for Direct Review in Vincent
- Supplemental Brief of Petitioners
- Williams Reply
- Williams Respondent Brief
- Williams Statement of Additional Authority Dated 10-12-07
- Williams Statement of Additional Authority Dated 12-24-07
- Williams Statement of Additional Authority Dated 12-31-07
- Williams Supplemental Respondent Brief
Argument: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 1:15pm
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, August 26th, 2010
Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)
Vote: 8-1
Citation: Pending
Madsen
Johnson
Baker
(Pro Tem)
Sanders
(Dissent)
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
(Majority)
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.