Docket No. 86214-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39053-1)
Synopsis: Whether police officers seeking consent to enter a defendant’s home to execute an arrest warrant on the defendant’s brother were required to advise the defendant of his right to refuse consent under State v. Ferrier, 136 Wn.2d 262, 960 P.2d 927 (1998).
Blog Archives
State v. Sisouvanh
Docket No. 85422-0 (from Benton Case No. 08-1-00685-2)
Synopsis: Whether for purposes of evaluating a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial, the term “qualified expert or professional person” under RCW 10.77.060(1)(a) requires a competency evaluator to be qualified to assess the defendant’s competency in light of the defendant’s cultural background.
Synopsis: Whether for purposes of evaluating a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial, the term “qualified expert or professional person” under RCW 10.77.060(1)(a) requires a competency evaluator to be qualified to assess the defendant’s competency in light of the defendant’s cultural background.
Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communication Center
Docket No. 85984-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64644-3)
Synopsis: Whether a county may be held liable under the special relationship exception to public duty doctrine for damages allegedly caused by a negligent response to a 911 call even though the 911 operator truthfully told the caller that a police officer had been dispatched.
Synopsis: Whether a county may be held liable under the special relationship exception to public duty doctrine for damages allegedly caused by a negligent response to a 911 call even though the 911 operator truthfully told the caller that a police officer had been dispatched.
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. 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.
Bird v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
Docket No. 86109-9 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64291-0)
Synopsis: Whether a plaintiff seeking treble damages for civil trespass pursuant to RCW 4.24.630 must prove that the trespasser intended to damage the invaded property.
Synopsis: Whether a plaintiff seeking treble damages for civil trespass pursuant to RCW 4.24.630 must prove that the trespasser intended to damage the invaded property.
In re Pers. Restraint of Crace
Docket No. 85131-0 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37806-0)
Synopsis: Whether a personal restraint petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel must show a greater degree of prejudice to establish the claim than if the claim were made on direct appeal.
Synopsis: Whether a personal restraint petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel must show a greater degree of prejudice to establish the claim than if the claim were made on direct appeal.
In re personal restraint of Heidari
Docket No. 85653-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63040-7) Facts: Respondent Mansour Heidari was convicted of first degree child rape, second degree child molestation, and third degree child molestation in the Superior Court for King County. After exhausting his direct appeals, Heidari filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals. The Washington Court of Appeals granted the petition and vacated Heidari’s convictions, holding that the evidence supporting the convictions was insufficient as a matter of law because there had not been any actual sexual contact between Heidari and the victim. The Washington Court of Appeals also denied the state of Washington’s motion to direct the entry of judgment on the lesser included offense of attempted second degree child molestation. The state of Washington appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Washington. Continue reading
State v. Deer
Docket No. 85511-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63737-1)
Synopsis: Whether it is an implied element of the crime of rape of a child that the act of sexual intercourse was volitional.
Synopsis: Whether it is an implied element of the crime of rape of a child that the act of sexual intercourse was volitional.
Washington v. Siers
Docket No. 85469-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63697-9) Facts: Respondent Brian Siers was charged with two counts of second degree assault after stabbing two men, one of whom was attempting to break up a fight between Siers and another person, outside of a Seattle restaurant. Although no aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information, the state of Washington notified Siers prior to trial of its intent to seek a good Samaritan aggravator on one of the counts. After the state and Siers had each rested their case, Siers objected to the state’s proposed jury instructions on grounds that the good Samaritan aggravator had not been charged in the information. The trial court overruled Siers’ objection and Siers was found guilty of both charges. The jury also returned a special verdict finding that Siers assaulted one of the victims while they were acting as a good Samaritan. Siers appealed his conviction and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that the state’s failure to plead the good Samaritan aggravator in the information functionally undermined the jury’s verdict on the substantive crime of second degree assault. Continue reading