Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Waylon Hubbard pled guilty to second degree possession of stolen property. He was sentenced to a short term of confinement and 120 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay legal financial obligations. By 2011, Hubbard had fulfilled his community service, and in 2013, he paid off his financial obligations. In 2016, Hubbard petitioned for a certificate and order of discharge (COD), with the effective date of February 25, 2013, the date he satisfied all the terms of his sentence. The State objected, arguing the court did not have the authority to enter an effective date that predated the date on which the court received notice that Hubbard completed his sentence. The Washington Supreme Court held the effective date of a certificate of discharge must be the state the offender completed all the terms of the sentence. View "Washington v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

In 2012, Washington voters approved I-1240, codified at chapter 28A.710 RCW, which created a public charter school system.In League of Women Voters v. Washington, 184 Wn.2d 393 (2015), the Washington Supreme Court held that I-1240 violated article IX, section 2 of the Washington Constitution, finding I-1240 incorrectly designated charter schools as common schools and then impermissibly supported them with money allocated for common schools. Because the unconstitutional provisions of I-1240 were not severable, the Court did not reach the other challenges raised by the plaintiffs. In 2016, the Washington legislature enacted the Charter School Act with amendments designed to cure its constitutional defects. Plaintiffs brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the new Act was facially unconstitutional. A number of charter schools joined the suit as intervenor-respondents. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the Act did not on its face violate the Washington Constitution. Plaintiffs then sought direct review from the Washington Supreme Court. "While each side of the discussion may have legitimate points of view, it is not the province of this court to express favor or disfavor of the legislature's policy decision to create charter schools. . . . We conclude that its only unconstitutional provision is severable, and thus we affirm the trial court in part and hold that the remainder of the Charter School Act is constitutional on its face." View "El Centro de la Raza v. Washington" on Justia Law

When Brian Bassett was 16 years old, he was living in a "shack" with Nicholaus McDonald after Bassett's parents '"kicked [him] out'" of their home. With McDonald's assistance, Bassett snuck back into his home and shot his mother and father. His brother was drowned in the bathtub, an act that McDonald initially confessed to but later blamed on Bassett at trial. Bassett was convicted of three counts of aggravated first degree murder for the deaths of his mother, father, and brother. The judge commented that Bassett was "a walking advertisement" for the death penalty and sentenced him to three consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. At issue here was the constitutionality of sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole or early release. The State appealed a Court of Appeals decision holding that the provision of Washington's Miller-fix statute that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be sentenced to life without parole violated the Washington Constitution's ban on cruel punishment. The appellate court adopted the categorical approach, rather than Washington's traditional Fain proportionality test, and found that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole or early release constituted cruel punishment. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and held that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole or early release constitutes cruel punishment and therefore is unconstitutional under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution. View "Washington v. Bassett" on Justia Law

In 1996, Allen Gregory raped, robbed and murdered a woman at her home. In 1998, he was investigated for another rape. In 2001, he was convicted for first degree murder and three counts of first degree rape. A jury recommended the death sentence. The sentence was reversed by the Washington Supreme Court, which found (1) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments in the penalty phase of the murder trial; and (2) the rape convictions were relied upon in the penalty phase of the murder case. A new jury was empaneled on remand and presided over a second special sentencing proceeding. The second jury also recommended the death sentence. With respect to the rape charges, the State determined a witness lied at the first trial, and moved to dismiss charges because of the inconsistent statements. The trial court dismissed the rape charges with prejudice. The issues this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review posited: (1) whether Washington's death penalty was imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner; (2) whether statutory proportionality review of death sentences alleviates the alleged constitutional defects of the death penalty; and (3) whether the trial court should have reconsidered arguments pertaining to the guilt phase of Gregory's trial. The Supreme Court determined precedent did not hold the death penalty was per se unconstitutional; the Court found it was imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. "The death penalty, as administered in our state, fails to serve any legitimate penological goal; thus it violates article I, section 14 of our state constitution." View "Washington v. Gregory" on Justia Law

This matter involved two unrelated juveniles, E.H. and S.K.-P. in unrelated dependency proceedings. R.R., E.H.;s mother, and S.K.-P. both challenged the validity of RCW 13.34.100's discretionary standard for appointment of counsel for children in dependency proceedings, and sought instead a categorical right to counsel for all children in dependency proceedings. The Washington Supreme Court consolidate these cases to address that issue. The Supreme Court determined RCW 13.34.100(7)(a) was adequate under the Washington Constitution, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to appoint counsel. In light of GR 15, the Supreme Court held confidential juvenile court records remain sealed and confidential on appeal, and granted a joint motion to seal records in these matters. View "In re Dependency of E.H." on Justia Law

Steven Yelovich and Faith De Armond dated for more than five years. Relevant to this appeal, Yelovich had an active restraining order against him, prohibiting him from coming near De Armond or having any contact with her. One day Yelovich saw someone through the fence of his son's house as he was moving boxes in the garage; he went to his car and discovered a window had been broken and some contents (including his cell phone) were missing. Yelovich saw De Armond walking down the street and had a hunch she broke the window and took his possessions. Yelovich was aware of the restraining order, but did not believe police would arrive in enough time to recover his phone. He chased her, and a struggle ensued. De Armond was treated for minor injuries; the responding police officer noted De Armond seemed intoxicated at the time of the incident. Yelovich was charged with one count felony violation of the no-contact order predicated on his assault of De Armond, and one count of bail jumping. At trial, he argued he was entitled to a jury instruction on defense of property because he was protecting his cell phone, which he believed De Armond had stolen. Yelovich appealed when the trial court denied his request. The Washington Supreme Court determined an instruction on defense-of-property is not available when there is a valid order prohibiting defendant from contacting the protected party. View "Washington v. Yelovich" on Justia Law

A jury convicted David Ramirez of third degree assault and possession of a controlled substance, and found by special verdict that he committed the assault with sexual motivation and displayed an egregious lack of remorse. After sentencing, Ramirez presented a notice of appeal and a motion for an order of indigency, which the the trial court granted. Prior to imposing his legal financial obligations, the trial court asked only two questions relating to Ramirez' then-current and future ability to pay, both of which were directed to the State. The trial court did not ask Ramirez directly about his ability to pay at any point during sentencing. The Washington Supreme Court found that a trial court has an obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay before imposing legal financial obligations at sentencing. An adequate inquiry must include consideration of certain mandatory factors, including the defendant's incarceration and other debts, and the court rule GR34 criteria for indigency. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded this case for the trial court to strike the improperly imposed LFSs from Ramirez's judgment and sentence. View "Washington v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Adrian Sassen Van Elsloo appealed the dismissal of an impaneled juror excused midtrial because she had a minor connection to an important defense witness. The Washington Supreme Court concluded the trial judge erred by dismissing the juror because there was no evidence the juror was biased. The Court decided as remedy for the erroneous dismissal was to grant defendant a new trial if the dismissal stemmed from the juror's views on the merits of the case. No new trial should be granted if the State could establish the error was harmless. The Court surmised there was a reasonable possibility the juror was dismissed because of her views on the merits of the case, so it granted a new trial. View "Washington v. Sassen Van Elsloo" on Justia Law

Defendants Hai Nguyen and Dominique Norris' cases were consolidated for the Washington Supreme Court's review; the issue they shared was whether the community custody conditions imposed by their respective sentencing courts were sufficiently crime related or unconstitutionally vague. Each case involved a defendant convicted of sexually assaulting a minor. For Nguyen, the sentencing court imposed a condition prohibiting defendant from possessing or viewing sexually explicit material. The Supreme Court determined that condition was not unconstitutionally vague and crime related. For Norris, the sentencing court imposed conditions requiring defendant to inform community corrections officers of any "dating relationship" and prohibited defendant from entering any "sex-related business." The Supreme Court determined the dating condition was unconstitutionally vague but that the sex-related business condition was crime related. View "Washington v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Washington voters referred Initiative 940 ("I-940") to the Legislature; I-940 was an initiative concerning police reform. The legislature also passed a conditional bill, ESHB 3003, purporting to prospectively amend 1-940 if it passed later-in this case, just a few minutes later. But that conditional, prospective bill violated the explicit language and allocation of legislative power contained in article II, section 1 of the Washington Constitution. A divided Washington Supreme Court majority affirmed a superior court's decision to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Washington Secretary of State to place I-940 on the ballot. View "Eyman v. Wyman" on Justia Law