Temple of Justice

2009 Decision Highlights

admin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:55:00 +0000

In 2009 the Court decided 120 cases. 59 were decided by unanimous decision while 17 were decided by a bare majority 5-4 vote. Among the Court’s most noteworthy decisions, it applied a flexible and purposive reading to statutory requirements regarding the initiative and referendum process, delivered a significant opinion applying the political question doctrine to an action seeking to compel the president of the Senate to forward a bill to the House of Representatives, and ruled that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution is more expansive than the right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Details are now posted on the Annual Summary of Decisions page, including summaries of the ten most noteworthy decisions of 2009.

Supreme Court Candidates Q&A

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:00:00 +0000

The following TVW broadcast features debates between Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson and challenger Stan Rumbaugh, as well as Justice Richard Sanders and challenger Charlie Wiggins.

Curtis v. Lein

admin — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether in a personal injury action against a landowner for injuries sustained in falling through a wooden dock, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to prove both that the dock was dangerously defective and that the landowners knew or should have known of the defect.

State v. Ish

admin — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the prosecutor in a criminal trial improperly vouched for a witness’s credibility when on direct examination the prosecutor elicited the fact that the witness had promised to testify truthfully as part of a plea agreement.

Myers v. American Building Maintenance Company West

admin — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether, in a dispute over attorney fees owed by a former client, the trial court erroneously awarded the former attorney prejudgment interest even though the former client had deposited the amount of claimed fees in the trial court registry, and whether on appeal the Court of Appeals erroneously altered the settlement amount on which the former attorney’s contingency fee was based.

State v. Ervin

admin — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether confinement on a misdemeanor probation violation interrupts the five-year “wash-out” period on a prior class C felony conviction.

Washington v. Mitchell

admin — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Facts: Petitioner Marilea Mitchell was convicted of criminal mistreatment in the Superior Court for Snohomish County after allowing a child in her care to become severely malnourished. Mitchell subsequently appealed her conviction, asserting that while she had been charged with violating provisions of Washington Revised Code §9A.42.020(1) criminalizing the mistreatment of “dependent persons” by those who have assumed responsibility for providing them with the basic necessities of life, these provisions do not apply to the mistreatment of children. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Mitchell’s conviction. Mitchell appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Are dependent persons and children mutually exclusive classes for purposes of §9A.42.020(1)?

Conclusion: Justice Sanders’ opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals, holding that although §9A.42.020(1) contains separate references to both dependent persons and children, the two classes are not mutually exclusive as the term dependent persons refers in the context of the statute to persons with disabilities and children may therefore also be dependent persons as to hold otherwise would, contrary to the intent of the legislature, exclude the mistreatment of disabled children.

State v. Garcia-Salgado

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a discovery order under CrR 4.7(b)(2)(vi) requiring a criminal defendant to supply a DNA sample had to meet constitutional requirements for the issuance of a warrant, and if so, whether those requirements were not met because the trial court failed to expressly find probable cause.

Smith v. Orthopedics Int’l, Ltd., P.S.

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether in a medical malpractice action defense counsel’s transmittal of court documents and attorney notes to the plaintiff’s nonparty treating physician prior to the physician’s testimony for the defense constituted improper ex parte contact.

Humphrey Industries v. Clay Street Associates

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a limited liability company that agreed to merge with another company violated the Washington Limited Liability Company Act by failing to tender payment for a dissenting member’s interest within 30 days after the member’s initial demand for payment.

State v. Webb

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether in a prosecution for third degree rape the burden of proving that the child victim was competent to testify rested on the State as the party that called the child as a witness.

School Districts’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education v. State of Washington

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether Washington’s special education funding mechanisms unconstitutionally underfund special education, and whether basic education funds can be applied to meet the State’s obligation to fully fund special education.

Washington v. Meneses

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Facts: Petitioner Andre Meneses was convicted of telephone harassment and witness intimidation in the Superior Court for King County after making a series of threatening telephone calls to his former girlfriend. Meneses subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that the jury had been improperly instructed by the trial court regarding the mens rea element of the crime of telephone harassment, that convicting him of both telephone harassment and witness tampering violated the 5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §9 of the Washington State Constitution’s prohibition against subjecting defendants to double jeopardy as the same telephone calls gave rise to both convictions, and that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding a lesser charge of witness tampering. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed both of Meneses’ convictions. Meneses appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Was the jury improperly instructed regarding the mens rea required to convict Meneses of telephone harassment?

Did convicting Meneses of both telephone harassment and witness tampering subject him to double jeopardy?

Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the possibility of convicting Meneses of the lesser charge of witness tampering in the alternative?

Conclusion: Justice Stephens’ opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed both of Meneses’ convictions, holding that the jury was properly instructed that Washington Revised Code §9.61.230 requires that a phone call be placed with the specific intent to harass or intimidate in order for the crime of telephone harassment to have been committed, that convicting Meneses of both telephone harassment and witness intimidation did not subject him to double jeopardy as each crime requires proof of a fact that the other does not, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the possibility of convicting Meneses of the lesser charge of witness tampering in the alternative as the statements Meneses made in the phone calls could only be interpreted as either true threats constituting witness intimidation or non-threats not meant to be taken seriously and therefore constituting no crime.

Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether, pursuant to Fry v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), the trial court in a personal injury action properly excluded expert testimony that exposure to organic solvents during pregnancy can cause neuronal birth defects.

City of Seattle v. Jacob

admin — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a municipal court order suppressing evidence in a criminal prosecution may be reviewed by the superior court by writ of review under RCW 7.16.040.

State v. Eserjose

admin — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether under the Washington Constitution a criminal defendant’s confession, made at the police station after the defendant waived his right to remain silent, should have been suppressed because the defendant was arrested in his home on probable cause but without a warrant.

State v. Sandoval

admin — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a non-citizen defendant who pleaded guilty to a criminal charge should be allowed to withdraw his plea because his attorney misadvised him about the potential deportation consequences of his conviction.

Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC

admin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the current holder of a aircraft type certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration is a “manufacturer” of the aircraft under the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, entitling the holder to assert the act’s statute of repose in defense to a product liability action.

State v. Immelt

admin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a Snohomish County ordinance that prohibits honking of a vehicle horn except for public safety purposes violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

State v. Montano

admin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the defendant intended to influence an arresting officer’s actions, and therefore committed the crime of intimidating a public servant, when he made threatening remarks to the officer following his arrest.

In re Sandra L. Ferguson, Attorney at Law

admin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: WSBA charged Ms. Ferguson with appearing before a judge without notice to the opposing party in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She contests the disciplinary board’s findings.

In re the Detention of Charles W. Post

admin — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:30:00 +0000

In re Det. of West v. State

admin — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether at trial on a petition to commit a sex offender as a sexually violent predator the State may present evidence of the treatment available to the offender should he be committed.

Rousso v. State

admin — Thu, 27 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a 2006 amendment to RCW 9.46.240 that effectively banned Internet gambling in Washington violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

Internet Cmty. & Entm’t Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State

admin — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether participants in an internet betting site, who are not obligated to pay off their losing bets but whose “honor ratings” are lowered when they refuse to pay, engage in unlawful “gambling” under the Washington gambling act, chapter 9.46 RCW, and whether the operator of the site engages in unlawful “bookmaking” even though it takes no position on the bets.

In re John Scannell, Attorney at Law

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Overlake Hosp. Ass’n & Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health of the State of Wash.

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the Department of Health employed a flawed methodology to determine the need for additional ambulatory surgical facilities in Bellevue by including surgical procedures exempt from the certificate of need requirement in calculating demand but excluding facilities where exempt procedures are performed in calculating existing capacity.

State v. S.S.Y.

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a juvenile offender convicted of first degree robbery and first degree assault based on the same criminal act was properly punished for both crimes under double jeopardy principles in light of RCW 13.40.180, which provides that the sentence of a juvenile offender who commits an act that constitutes both one offense and an element of another offense may not exceed 150 percent of the sentence for the more serious offense.

Rahman v. State

admin — Tue, 18 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the State may be vicariously liable for injuries sustained by an unauthorized passenger of a state-owned vehicle driven by a state employee while on state business.

State v. Brousseau

admin — Tue, 18 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the trial court violated a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing concerning the competency of a child witness by declining to require the child’s presence for questioning.

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Vincent R. Adolph

admin — Tue, 18 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether in a prosecution for vehicular homicide the State sufficiently proved prior DUI convictions for purposes of a sentence enhancement by providing a certified copy of the defendant’s driver’s license abstract, an uncertified copy of an online case history, and a copy of a district court docket, and if not, whether the State should be allowed to present additional evidence at re-sentencing.

Guillen, City of Sunnyside v. Contreras

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the claimant in an action to recover property seized in a controlled substances investigation “substantially prevailed,” and thus was entitled to an award of attorney fees, even though she recovered in value less than one-quarter of the assets she sought.

W. Russell Van Camp, Attorney at Law

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 20:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: show cause hearing.

State v. Irby

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be present when it dismissed some potential jurors outside the defendant’s presence after conferring with defense counsel and the State by email.

In re Pers. Restraint of Francis v. State

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions by pleading guilty to the crimes.

State v. Hirschfelder

admin — Tue, 11 May 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a high school employee who had sexual intercourse with an 18-year-old student committed the crime of sexual misconduct with a minor under RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b), which prohibits sexual intercourse between a school employee and a registered student at least 16 years old.

Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Wash. State Office of the Att’y General

admin — Tue, 11 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, prohibits the state Attorney General from disclosing under the state Public Records Act certain loan files acquired by the Attorney General in a civil action against a financial institution.

State v. Monday

admin — Tue, 11 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the prosecutor in a criminal trial committed reversible misconduct by asking an African-American witness about her interactions with “po-leese” and by asserting in closing argument that “black folk don’t testify against black folk.”

State v. Sanchez

admin — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether offenders still in prison for drug offenses may challenge a community custody condition prohibiting possession of “hand held electronic scheduling and data storage devices,” and if so, whether the prohibition is unconstitutionally vague.

In re Det. of Hawkins v. State

admin — Thu, 06 May 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether under chapter 71.09 RCW a person alleged to be a sexually violent predator may be required to submit to a polygraph examination as part of his initial evaluation.

State v. Doughty

admin — Thu, 06 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether police lawfully stopped a motorist for investigation after observing him in the early morning briefly visit a house where police suspected drugs were being sold based on neighbor complaints.

In re Richard Dale Shepard, Attorney at Law

admin — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Honorable Richard B. Sanders v. State of Washington

admin — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:00:00 +0000

In re personal restraint of Blackburn

admin — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Facts: Following his conviction for two drug offenses, petitioner Douglas Blackburn was sentenced to community confinement and substance abuse treatment pursuant to the sentencing alternative for first time drug offenders offered by Washington Revised Code §9.94A.660. After learning that Blackburn had allegedly threatened to kill his sister in law, the state of Washington subsequently notified Blackburn that he had violated the terms of his community confinement by failing to obey all laws and moved to have it revoked. Following a hearing, the hearing officer determined that Blackburn had violated §9A.46.020(1)(a)(ii) (Washington’s harassment statute), revoked his community confinement, and ordered Blackburn’s imprisonment for the remainder of his sentence. Blackburn subsequently filed a personal restraint petition seeking his release, asserting that the notice provided to him by the Department of Corrections of his alleged violation of the terms of his community confinement was insufficient insofar as it simply referred to the threat made to his sister in law and did not specify which statutory provision he had thereby violated.

Question(s): Was Blackburn’s right to due process under the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution violated by the Department of Corrections’ failure to specify the crime it was accusing Blackburn of committing and its elements?

Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for a unanimous Court ruled that Blackburn’s right to due process of law had been violated by the manner in which the Department of Corrections notified him of his alleged failure to obey all laws as neglecting to specify which statute Blackburn was accused of violating impeded Blackburn’s ability to present a defense at the hearing (in particular given the fact that the hearing officer initially based their decision upon §9A.46.020(1)(a)(iv), which had previously been declared unconstitutional, rather than the constitutionally valid §9A.46.020(1)(a)(ii)). Thus, the Court granted Blackburn’s personal restraint petition and vacated the hearing officer’s decision.

Brown v. Vail

admin — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Facts: Petitioner Cal Brown, a prisoner who had been sentenced to death following his conviction for murder, filed suit against respondent Eldon Vail, the secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections, in the Superior Court for Thurston County, asserting that the lethal injection protocol employed by the state for executions constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §14 of the Washington State Constitution insofar as unnecessary pain might be inflicted if the protocol were not carried out properly, that the Department of Corrections had not been properly delegated the authority to determine the lethal injection protocol by the legislature in Washington Revised Code §10.95.180(1), and that the lethal injection protocol violates both state (Washington Revised Code §69.50) and federal (21 U.S.C. §801-971) controlled substance statutes. The trial court dismissed Brown’s claims and affirmed the constitutionality of the lethal injection protocol. Although the Department of Corrections had in the interim revised the lethal injection protocol in order to lessen the risk of the unnecessary infliction of pain, Brown appealed the trial court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Did the legislature properly delegate authority for determining the lethal injection protocol to the Department of Corrections?

Does the lethal injection protocol violate state and federal controlled substance statutes?

Is Brown’s challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection protocol moot?

Conclusion: Justice Stephens’ opinion for a unanimous Court ruled that the delegation of authority to determine the lethal injection protocol by the legislature to the Department of Corrections was proper, finding that authorization to establish the lethal injection protocol could be inferred from the express authorization in §10.95.180(1) to supervise executions by lethal injection and that §10.95.180(1) established adequate procedural safeguards. The Court also held that the lethal injection protocol was not inconsistent with state and federal controlled substance statutes as it was not the intent of these statutes to regulate execution procedures. Finally, the Court concluded that Brown’s constitutional challenge to the lethal injection protocol had been mooted by the change in protocol.

O’Neill v. City of Shoreline

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether metadata associated with agency e-mail is a public record disclosable under the Public Records Act.

State v. Patel

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether the defendant was properly convicted of attempted child rape when the purported victim was a police officer posing as a child on the Internet.

Little Mountain Estates Tenants Association v. Little Mountain Estates Mobile Home Community, L.L.C.

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Facts: Respondent Little Mountain Estates Tenants Association filed suit against petitioner Little Mountain Estates Mobile Home Community, L.L.C. in the Superior Court for Skagit County on behalf of tenants who had assigned their leases, claiming that lease provisions converting leases’ original twenty-five year terms into one or two year terms upon assignment violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act (Washington Revised Code §59.20), which protects mobile home tenants’ right to assign their leases. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that the lease terms did not violate §59.20. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the lease provisions constituted an unenforceable waiver of the right to assign a mobile home lease. Little Mountain Estates appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Do the lease provisions changing the duration of the lease upon assignment violate the right to assignment guaranteed by §59.20?

Conclusion: Justice Sanders’ opinion for the Court held that the contested lease provisions do not violate §59.20 insofar as they merely preclude tenants from assigning a twenty-five year lease rather than from assigning their lease entirely and thus do not constitute a waiver of the right to assignment. Thus, the provisions were ruled enforceable and the Court reversed the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals.

Rivard v. Washington

admin — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Facts: Petitioner James Rivard successfully petitioned the Superior Court for Spokane County for the restoration of his right to possess a firearm, which had been revoked nine years earlier as a result of his being convicted of vehicular homicide, pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9.41.040, which permits individuals otherwise prohibited from doing so to petition to have their rights restored so long as they have not been convicted of a class A felony or a sex offense. The respondent state of Washington appealed the trial court’s decision, maintaining that as vehicular homicide had been reclassified by Washington Revised Code §46.61.520(2) from a class B to a class A felony subsequent to Rivard’s conviction, he was ineligible to petition to have his right to possess a firearm restored. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the reclassification of vehicular homicide retroactively applied to Rivard with regard to his right to petition under §9.41.040. Rivard appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does §9.41.040 retroactively apply the reclassification of vehicular homicide for purposes of eligibility to petition for a restoration of the right to possess a firearm?

Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for a unanimous Court concluded that Rivard was eligible to petition to have his right to possess a firearm restored as there was no indication that the reclassification was intended to apply retroactively. Thus, as Rivard had been convicted of a class B rather than a class A felony, he was eligible to file a petition under §9.41.040 as he had not been convicted of any other crimes in the five years subsequent to his vehicular homicide conviction.

State v. Stubbs

admin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:30:00 +0000

Synopsis: Whether a defendant convicted of first degree assault based on the infliction of “great bodily harm” was properly given an exceptional sentence based on the infliction of injuries that “substantially exceed the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements of the offense.” See RCW 9.94A.535(3)(y).