Docket No. 87472-7 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40534-2; 40636-5)
Synopsis: Whether in a prosecution for domestic violence offenses the defendant’s conduct toward the victim before and after his arrest supported a ruling that he forfeited his right to challenge the admission of the unavailable victim’s out-of-court statements, even though there was no evidence that the defendant threatened the victim not to testify or direct evidence that the victim refused to appear because of threats.
Blog Archives
State v. Franklin
Docket No. 87253-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64033-0)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a prosecution for cyberstalking erroneously disallowed evidence that someone else committed the crime after allowing the alleged other suspect to assert her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a prosecution for cyberstalking erroneously disallowed evidence that someone else committed the crime after allowing the alleged other suspect to assert her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Humphrey Industries v. Clay Street Associates
Docket No. 86643-1 (from King Case No. 05-2-20201-7 SEA & 05-2-24967-6 SEA)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a dissenter’s right suit erred on remand in reinstating an attorney fees award against the dissenter on the basis of arbitrary, vexatious, or bad faith action after this court held that there was no basis in the record for the award. See Humphrey Indus., Ltd. v. Clay Street Assocs., LLC, 170 Wn.2d 495, 242 P.3d 846 (2010).
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a dissenter’s right suit erred on remand in reinstating an attorney fees award against the dissenter on the basis of arbitrary, vexatious, or bad faith action after this court held that there was no basis in the record for the award. See Humphrey Indus., Ltd. v. Clay Street Assocs., LLC, 170 Wn.2d 495, 242 P.3d 846 (2010).
State v. Allen
Docket No. 86119-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64466-1)
Synopsis: Whether in a criminal prosecution involving a defendant and an eyewitness of different races the trial court should instruct the jury on the difficulty of cross-racial identification when identification is at issue and there is no other corroborating evidence.
Synopsis: Whether in a criminal prosecution involving a defendant and an eyewitness of different races the trial court should instruct the jury on the difficulty of cross-racial identification when identification is at issue and there is no other corroborating evidence.
Washington v. Thompson
Docket No. 84739-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59366-8) Facts: Respondent Bobby Ray Thompson was convicted of first degree rape in the Superior Court for Snohomish County. Nine years later, asserting actual innocence, Thompson petitioned the superior court for post-conviction D.N.A. testing of all evidence collected in the case. The superior court denied the motion on grounds that D.N.A. testing would not demonstrate Thompson’s innocence insofar as Thompson had made a statement to the police shortly after his arrest in which he said that he and the victim had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and ordered that D.N.A. testing be permitted, holding that the denial of Thompson’s motion could not be based upon Thompson’s statement to the police as this statement was not admitted into evidence at trial. Continue reading
Washington v. Anderson
Docket No. 84066-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 38453-1) Facts: Petitioner Jeremy Anderson was convicted of first degree child molestation in the Superior Court for Mason County after a trial in which the nurse who examined the victim of a prior uncharged sex offense allegedly committed by Anderson offered testimony recounting statements made to her by the victim. Continue reading
Washington v. Beadle
Docket No. 84204-3 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37508-7) Facts: Petitioner Steven Beadle was convicted of child molestation in the Superior Court for Lewis County after a trial in which out of court statements made by the alleged victim were admitted into evidence after the alleged victim refused to testify. Beadle subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that the trial court erred in finding the alleged victim unavailable and admitting the out of court statements and in admitting evidence that the alleged victim’s unwillingness to testify was the result of post-traumatic stress disorder. Continue reading
Washington v. Robinson
Docket No. 83525-0 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36918-4) Facts: Petitioner Michael Robinson was convicted of burglary, theft of a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of methamphetamine after a search of an automobile he was riding in following its driver’s apprehension for reckless driving revealed stolen property. Continue reading
Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.
Docket No. 82264-6 (from King Case No. 07-2-10209-4 SEA) Facts: Petitioner Julie Anderson filed suit against her former employer, respondent Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., in the Superior Court for King County, claiming that her exposure to toxic solvents while mixing paint in the course of her employment was the cause of her son’s birth defects and that she was subsequently wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy after she filed a formal complaint reporting safety concerns to the Department of Labor and Industries. Continue reading
In re detention of West
Docket No. 82568-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59666-7) Facts: Prior to his impending release from prison, petitioner Gale West was committed indefinitely as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09 after a trial in the Superior Court for King County. Continue reading