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
Chaney v. Providence Health Care
Docket No. 87056-0 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 29438-2)
Synopsis: Whether a form filled out by the physician of an employee on medical leave, stating that the employee could return to work as soon as the employer allowed, constituted a valid fitness-for-duty certification obligating the employer to reinstate the employee under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
Synopsis: Whether a form filled out by the physician of an employee on medical leave, stating that the employee could return to work as soon as the employer allowed, constituted a valid fitness-for-duty certification obligating the employer to reinstate the employee under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
State v. Saintcalle
Docket No. 86257-5 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64467-0)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution erred in allowing the State to use a peremptory challenge to exclude the only African-American potential juror after she expressed concern about the fairness of the criminal justice system toward young African-American men.
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution erred in allowing the State to use a peremptory challenge to exclude the only African-American potential juror after she expressed concern about the fairness of the criminal justice system toward young African-American men.
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
Docket No. 85949-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63518-2)
Synopsis: Whether the federal “economic realities” test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and if so, whether the trial court correctly articulated that test in its jury instructions.
Synopsis: Whether the federal “economic realities” test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and if so, whether the trial court correctly articulated that test in its jury instructions.
Washington v. Lyons
Docket No. 85746-6 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 28693-2) Facts: A Yakima District Court judge issued a warrant to search petitioner Patrick Lyons’ property on the basis of an affidavit provided by the Yakima Police Department which detailed information provided by a confidential source indicating that there was a marijuana growing operation on Lyons’ property. After the subsequent search revealed marijuana plants, supplies for packaging marijuana, and a large quantity of mushrooms, Lyons was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possesion of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of mushrooms with intent to deliver. Lyons moved to suppress the evidence derived from the search on grounds that because the affidavit said nothing about the timing of the confidential source’s observation, it failed to state timely probable cause. The trial court granted Lyons’ motion. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that language in the affidavit stating that the confidential source contacted the Yakima Police Department “within the last 48 hours” could be read to apply both to the time of contact and to the time of the confidential source’s observations. Continue reading
Washington v. Morales
Docket No. 84197-7 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36941-9) Facts: After petitioner Jose Morales crashed into another motorist in his automobile and fled the scene, he was arrested by a state trooper. Because the trooper found evidence that Morales was under the influence of alcohol, he transported Morales to a hospital in order to have a blood alcohol test performed. Due to the fact that Morales speaks limited English, the trooper instructed an interpreter to inform Morales, as required by Washington Revised Code §46.20.308, that he would be subject to a blood alcohol test and that he had a right to an independent test. After a trial in which the results of the blood alcohol test were admitted into evidence, Morales was convicted of hit and run, driving under the influence of alcohol, and vehicular assault by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor and in a reckless manner. Morales appealed his convictions, asserting that the results of the blood alcohol test were inadmissible insofar as the state failed to prove that he had been apprised of his rights under §46.20.308 given that the interpreter had not testified at trial. Continue reading
Washington v. Simms
Docket No. 83826-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 60365-5) Facts: Petitioner Daniel Simms was convicted of robbery, assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the Superior Court for King County and sentenced. As Simms had previously been convicted of assault while armed with a firearm, the firearm enhancement applied to his sentence was doubled pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9.94A.533(3). Continue reading
Lamtec Corporation v. Department of Revenue
Docket No. 83579-9 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37516-8) Facts: Seeking a refund of state business and occupation taxes that it had paid under protest, petitioner Lamtec Corporation filed suit against the respondent Department of Revenue in the Superior Court for Thurston County. Continue reading
School Districts’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education v. Washington
Docket No. 82961-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36294-5) Facts: The petitioner School Districts’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education filed suit against the respondent state of Washington in the Superior Court for Thurston County seeking a declaratory judgment that the state’s procedures for funding special education violate the state’s duty Continue reading
Washington v. Montano
Docket No. 82855-5 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 26124-7) Facts: Petitioner Jose Montano was charged under Washington Revised Code §9A.76.180 with intimidating a public servant in the Superior Court for Grant County after insulting and threatening the police officer who had arrested him following an altercation with his brother. Continue reading