Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2017, D.L., a 14-year-old boy, was charged with three counts of first degree rape and one count of attempted first degree rape of his 5-year-old half brother. At the time, D.L. had no prior criminal history. D.L. successfully negotiated a plea deal with the prosecutor, reducing the charges to a single count of first degree attempted child molestation. D.L. stipulated in his plea agreement that the trial court could use the probable cause statement to determine the facts that supported his conviction. But when the court imposed the manifest injustice disposition, it relied on three facts that were not in the probable cause affidavit: (1) that D.L.’s victim had a cognitive disability; (2) that D.L. refused accountability; and (3) that D.L. would not cooperate with treatment. This case asked the Washington Supreme Court whether due process required that the State give a juvenile notice of these specific facts before pleading guilty if they will be used to justify a manifest injustice disposition. "Ultimately, due process requires that juveniles be treated in a manner that is fundamentally fair. ... Without adequate notice, juveniles and their attorneys cannot predict which facts might be unearthed and weaponized to extend the juvenile’s sentence after the plea. This lack of notice causes unfair surprise to young defendants and serves only to undermine juveniles’ and their families’ trust in our juvenile justice system. Our adult defendants in Washington are not treated so unfairly and neither should we so treat our juveniles." As a result, the manifest injustice disposition was improperly imposed. As D.L. already served his sentence and this case was technically moot; the Court resolved this legal issue without modifying D.L.’s sentence. View "Washington v. D.L." on Justia Law

Kshama Sawant served on the Seattle City Council since 2013. Ernest Lou, among others, filed recall charges alleging that Councilmember Sawant delegated city employment decisions to a political organization outside city government, used city resources to promote a ballot initiative and failed to comply with public disclosure requirements, disregarded state orders related to COVID-19 and endangered the safety of city workers and other individuals by admitting hundreds of people into Seattle City Hall while it was closed to the public, and led a protest march to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s private residence, the location of which Councilmember Sawant knew was protected under state confidentiality laws. The trial court found these charges factually and legally sufficient for recall. Councilmember Sawant challenged the ballot synopsis. The Washington Supreme Court determined petitioner’s charges that Councilmember Sawant delegated city employment decisions to a political organization outside city government and a portion of the charge that Councilmember Sawant’s actions in divulging the location of Mayor Durkan’s private residence amounted to criminal harassment in violation of RCW 9A.46.020 were legally insufficient. The Court affirmed in all other respects, and declined to address the Councilmember's challenge to the ballot synopsis, because RCW 29A.56.140 provided that “[a]ny decision regarding the ballot synopsis by the superior court is final.” View "In re Recall of Sawant" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented centered on the test to be applied when determining whether to instruct the jury on a lesser included or lesser degree offense. Under Washington v. Workman, 584 P.2d 382 (1978), a defendant was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction if: (1) each of the elements of the lesser offense was a necessary element of the offense charged (legal prong); and (2) evidence in the case supported an inference that the lesser crime was committed (factual prong). Although the Washington Supreme Court continued to follow the Workman test, confusion arose after some of its opinions expressed Workman’s factual prong as requiring evidence “that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the [greater] charged offense.” Tanner Coryell was charged with two counts of assault. The first count was second degree assault by means of strangulation and the second count was fourth degree assault. Coryell requested a lesser included offense instruction for fourth degree assault for count one. In support of his request, Coryell argued that any force he used was in self-defense and defense of his property or that his actions did not prevent Autumn Hart’Lnenicka from breathing. The Supreme Court determined Coryell was still entitled to a lesser included offense instruction when a jury could reasonably find, based on evidence submitted and the jury’s decision about whether it was credible or not, that the defendant committed only the lesser offense. Coryell’s conviction was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Coryell" on Justia Law

This case involved a challenge to former RCW 43.43.120(23)(a) (2001), which excluded certain overtime from the calculation of the monthly pension benefit granted under the Washington State Patrol Retirement System (WSPRS). Four Washington State troopers (Troopers) hired before the statute became effective claimed this exclusion of voluntary overtime from the calculation of their monthly pensions was an unconstitutional impairment of their contract with the State in violation of article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article I, section 23 of the Washington State Constitution. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled: (1) the statute of limitations was three years and accrued at retirement; (2) there remained issues of material fact regarding whether the change was offset by comparable benefits; and (3) the change was reasonable and necessary to serve a legitimate public purpose. After review of that ruling, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the statute of limitations and on comparable benefits. However, the Court vacated its legitimate public purpose ruling as premature given that the issue of comparable benefits remained for trial. The matter was remanded for additional proceedings. View "Hester v. Washington" on Justia Law

In this case, the issue presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review was whether the trial court violated petitioner Nicholas Conan Orn’s rights to confrontation and to present a complete defense when it barred him from cross-examining the State’s key witness to expose the witness’s bias. Orn was charged with attempted first-degree murder after he shot and wounded Thomas Seamans in Kent, Washington in 2016. At trial, Orn sought to cross-examine Seamans on the nature and extent of Seamans’s work as a confidential informant for the Kent Police Department (KPD). But the trial court limited Orn’s proposed line of cross-examination to a single, misleading question: “[I]sn’t it true that . . . you have actually worked with the Kent Police?” The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, and the Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court reiterated its holding in prior decisions that relevant bias evidence is admissible unless the State articulates a compelling interest for excluding it. Furthermore, the Court held that the single question the trial court allowed the defense to ask intros case "tended to obfuscate, rather than highlight, any potential bias. As a result, the trial court’s decision to exclude all other evidence related to that informant agreement violated constitutional protections and constituted an abuse of discretion." The Court found the State, however, carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this constitutional error was harmless. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. View "Washington v. Orn" on Justia Law

In King County, Washington, individuals subject to a warrantless arrest typically first appear before a district court judge to determine probable cause and set bail or release on personal recognizance (PR). The superior court obtains jurisdiction once an information is filed by the county prosecutor. Then without notice to the defendant, a superior court judge may make a dew decision to set bail or increase bail previously set by the district court. Petitioner Julian Pimentel asked the Washington Supreme Court to prohibit this practice by granting extraordinary relief by way of a writ of prohibition or mandamus against the King County Superior Court Judges (Judges) and the King County Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecutor). In the alternative, Pimentel sought a declaratory judgment. While the Supreme Court was sympathetic to Pimentel’s concerns, this original action for extraordinary writs was the wrong vehicle to provide the relief sought. Pimentel’s underlying criminal case, for which he was originally subject to a bail increase without prior notice, was dismissed over one year prior to the filing of this petition. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition as moot and declined to reach the issue of whether a county prosecutor qualifies as a state officer for purposes of article IV, section 4 of the Washington constitution. Pimentel’s alternative request for declaratory relief was also dismissed for lack of original jurisdiction. View "Pimentel v. Judges of King Cty. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Petitioners Dwayne Bartholomew and Kurtis Monschke were each convicted of aggravated first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole - a mandatory, nondiscretionary sentence under Washington’s aggravated murder statute. Bartholomew was 20 years old; Monschke was 19. Many years after their convictions, each filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) asking the Washington Supreme Court to consider whether article I, section 14 of the state constitution or the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution permitted a mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentence for youthful defendants like themselves. "[W]hen it comes to mandatory LWOP sentences, [Miller v. United States, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)]'s constitutional guarantee of an individualized sentence - one that considers the mitigating qualities of youth - must apply to defendants at least as old as these defendants were at the time of their crimes." Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted both PRPs and ordered that Bartholomew and Monschke each receive a new sentencing hearing. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke" on Justia Law

In this case, the superior court did not clearly state that it was “arresting or vacating” Respondent Anthony Waller’s judgment, or even granting his motion, in its first order on his CrR 7.8 motion. Instead, it skipped straight ahead to ordering a resentencing hearing. This case presented a question about the application of RAP 2.2(b)(3) in this unusual context: Does a series of superior court orders retaining jurisdiction of a CrR 7.8 motion, scheduling a resentencing hearing, ordering the prisoner transported for that resentencing hearing, and clarifying that the first order did indeed grant the CrR 7.8 motion, amount to granting the motion and “vacating” the old sentence within the meaning of RAP 2.2(b)(3)? The Washington Supreme Court held that it did, and reversed the Court of Appeals. "[W]hen a superior court receives a CrR 7.8 motion, it should follow the CrR 7.8(c) procedures. Pursuant to those procedures, the court should ordinarily hold a show cause hearing before granting relief." View "Washington v. Waller" on Justia Law

Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute, RCW 69.50.4013, made possession of a controlled substance a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, plus a hefty fine; leads to deprivation of numerous other rights and opportunities; and did this without proof that the defendant even knew they possessed the substance. In 2016, police executed a search warrant in Spokane, Washington, seeking evidence of stolen vehicles. They arrested three people on the property, including petitioner Shannon Blake. At the jail, a corrections officer discovered a small baggy containing methamphetamine in the coin pocket of Blake’s jeans. The State charged Blake with possession of a controlled substance. At a bench trial, Blake relied on the affirmative defense of "unwitting possession:" a friend bought the jeans secondhand and gave them to Blake two days before Blake's arrest; Blake never used methamphetamine and did not know drugs were in the pocket; and Blake's boyfriend testified Blake was not a drug user. The trial court found Blake possessed drugs without finding her possession was intentional or knowing. The court concluded Blake did not meet her burden proving her possession was unwitting. This case presented an issue of first impression for the Washington Supreme Court: whether the strict liability drug possession statute with these substantial penalties for such innocent, passive conduct exceeded the legislature’s police power. The Court concluded the answer was yes, this exceeded the State's police power. Blake's conviction was vacated. View "Washington v. Blake" on Justia Law

The Freedom Foundation was a nonprofit organization that describes itself as committed to “advanc[ing] individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government in the Evergreen State.” The Foundation brought citizen’s actions against Teamsters Local 117; Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action Fund (SEIU PEAF); and Governor Inslee, the Department of Social and Health Services, and Service Employees International Union 775 for various alleged violations of Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA). In consolidated appeals, the issue common to all was whether the Freedom Foundation satisfied the FCPA’s prerequisites before filing their citizen’s actions. In each case, the superior courts ruled the Foundation failed to meet a 10-day deadline required by the FCPA and, accordingly, entered judgment for respondents. After review, the Washington Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. With respect to the Foundation's suit against the Teamsters Local 117, the Supreme Court determined that though the superior court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings to the union, the court’s entry of judgment would have been proper as summary judgment, and was thus affirmed. This result precluded the Foundation’s other challenges to the superior court’s rulings, which were therefore not addressed. As to the union's cross-appeal of its counterclaim against the Foundation under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Foundation was not a state actor, was not wielding powers traditionally and exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was not subject to suit under section 1983. View "Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117" on Justia Law