Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Prison inmate Steven Kozol sought to file a statutory petition for writ of review under chapter 7.16 RCW to challenge a prison disciplinary sanction imposed by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections alleged that Kozol committed a serious infraction as defined under WAC 137-25-030 (Category D, 740: committing fraud or embezzlement, or obtaining goods, services, money, or anything else of value under false pretenses). A disciplinary hearing officer found Kozol guilty of the infraction and imposed a sanction of 10 days of cell confinement. There was no apparent loss of early release credit. Ordinarily, an inmate challenging a prison disciplinary sanction would file a personal restraint petition. But Kozol instead filed a pro se action for declaratory relief, alleging among other things that the department violated disciplinary hearing procedures set forth in chapter 137-28 WAC. He later amended his complaint to name individual defendants and assert additional causes of action, including a claim for damages. On Kozol' s appeal of the superior court's denial of his request to present a writ petition, the Court of Appeals held that Kozol could petition for such a writ in challenging a prison disciplinary decision. But because a personal restraint petition was an "adequate remedy at law" for challenging such a decision in this case, Kozol could not establish a basis for a statutory writ. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action but reversed denial of Kozol's motion to amend his complaint to seek a statutory writ of review, holding that Kozol could seek such a writ in challenging a prison disciplinary decision not involving loss of good conduct credits. The State appealed the Court of Appeals' judgment. After review, the Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Kozol v. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

Someone attempted to burglarize Lancer Lanes and Casino around 2:00a.m. on May 14, 2013. The burglar cut the surveillance feed. However, the burglar's activities awoke Eric Glasson, an individual who occasionally slept overnight at Lancer Lanes, and Glasson's presence apparently spooked the burglar into leaving without taking anything. On May 23, Petitioner Troy Wilcoxon, a card dealer at Lancer Lanes, invited Glasson, James Nollette, and two other casino employees to a "strip club" called the Candy Store. State's theory of the case was that the purpose of inviting Glasson and the other casino employees to the Candy Store was to get them out of Lancer Lanes so the burglary could occur without any interference. The group arrived around midnight, but Wilcoxon left by himself less than an hour later after talking privately with Nollette. Shortly after 2:00a.m., the Candy Store's surveillance footage showed Nollette talking on his cell phone with someone-the conversation lasted roughly 15 minutes. Cell phone records showed several calls between Nollette and Wilcoxon around 2:00a.m. Wilcoxon's phone's signal relied on a cell tower near Lancer Lanes. Soon after Nollette's conversation ended, Nollette, Glasson, and the two casino employees left the Candy Store. That same night, surveillance footage from Lancer Lanes showed the same garbage-bag-wearing burglar enter the building just before 2:00 a.m. The burglar again cut the surveillance feed, but this time, the cameras were backed up by batteries and recorded the burglary. Surveillance footage showed the burglar take $29,074 from Lancer Lanes's money drawer. The State charged Wilcoxon with second degree burglary, first degree theft, and second degree conspiracy to commit burglary. Wilcoxon's case was joined for trial with Nollette's case. Prior to trial, Wilcoxon moved to sever his trial from Nollette's, arguing that since Nollette would likely not testify, Wilcoxon would be unable to cross-examine him regarding certain statements Nollette made. The trial court denied Wilcoxon's motion. The jury convicted Wilcoxon of all three charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed Wilcoxon's convictions, finding no confrontation right violation or requirement to provide a limiting instruction sua sponte. After review, the Supreme Court found that Nolette's out of court statements made to another person were not testimonial, and as such, were not subject to the confrontation right. Wilcoxon's convictions were affirmed. View "Washington v. Wilcoxon" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an action brought by the Seattle Times against the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) for withholding nonexempt public records in violation of the Public Records Act (PRA). In October 2012, L&I received a complaint of elevated levels of lead in the blood of two employees working on a remodel of Wade's Eastside Gun Shop. L&I opened investigations into companies that employed workers at Wade's during the remodel. The appeal presented two novel questions about the PRA, and additional fact specific questions: (1) whether a trial court has discretion to calculate penalties for nondisclosure of public records on a per page basis by defining the term "record" to include a single page; (2) whether L&I investigations qualify for the categorical investigative records exemption the Washington Supreme Court has recognized as necessary for "effective law enforcement;" and (3) whether the trial court correctly found that L&I violated the PRA during five separate time periods, and appropriately imposed penalties for each time period. After review of this case, the Washington Supreme Court held that the PRA allowed trial courts to impose penalties calculated on a per page basis, and that L&I could not take advantage of the categorical investigative records exemption in this case. Because L&I did not otherwise demonstrate that any of the public records at issue were exempt from disclosure, and because the trial court acted within its considerable discretion, the Court affirmed the decision. View "Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus." on Justia Law

At the time of his involuntary civil commitment, W.C.C. lived at the Downtown Emergency Service Center's Rainer House. In December 2013, Rainer House staff informed a King County designated mental health professional (DMHP) that W.C.C. had hit another Rainer House resident in the throat. He had previously threatened to kill the resident and had falsely accused him of having sexual relations with a Rainer House clinical support specialist. That person reported that W.C.C. was fixated on her and screamed obscenities at her. These incidents lead to W.C.C.'s civil commitment. W.C.C. argued the probable cause hearing for his civil commitment under Washington's Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) should have been dismissed as untimely. At issue was whether weekends and holidays were excluded from calculating the maximum time period allowed for continuances under the Act. After review, the Supreme Court rejected W.C.C. 's argument and agreed with the Court of Appeals: weekends and holidays were excluded when computing the maximum time allowed for continuances under RCW 71.05.240(1). View "In re Det. of W.C.C." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the legislature's amendment to a business and occupation (B&O) tax exemption, applied retroactively, violated a taxpayer's rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, collateral estoppel, or separation of powers principles. Taxpayer Dot Foods contended that it should have remained eligible for a B&O tax exemption pursuant to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in "Dot Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue," (215 P.3d 185 (2009) (Dot Foods I)), despite an intervening, contrary amendment to the applicable law. Because Dot Foods I did not encompass the tax periods at issue in this case, the Supreme Court held that retroactive application of the legislative amendment to Dot Foods did not violate due process, collateral estoppel, or separation of powers principles. View "Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Chad Chenoweth was convicted of six counts of third degree child rape of his daughter and six counts of first degree incest. The incest counts and the rape of a child counts were based on six incidents, each involving a single act. At sentencing, Chenoweth moved the court to find the incest counts were the same criminal conduct as the corresponding rape of a child count. The trial court disagreed and counted each conviction separately for the purposes of sentencing, concluding the offender score exceeded nine. Sentences for each conviction were ordered to be served concurrently. Chenoweth appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence. The Supreme Court granted review on the same criminal conduct issue, found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Washington v. Chenoweth" on Justia Law

Cory Sundberg was charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). The statute under which Sundberg was convicted set forth a strict liability crime in that knowledge of the possession was not an element of the offense that the State had to prove. To reduce the harshness of this offense, courts have created an "unwitting possession" defense and placed the burden on the defendant to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. At trial, the thrust of Sundberg's argument was to assert an unwitting possession defense, assuming this burden of proof. He was convicted, and the issue his appeal presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a prosecutor commits error when, during closing rebuttal argument, he comments that the defendant failed to call a witness to corroborate his affirmative defense of unwitting possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court held that in a criminal prosecution where the defendant has the burden to establish an affirmative defense, no error occurs where the prosecutor comments on the defendant's failure to present evidence or testimony in support of the defense. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Sundberg" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Spencer Miller of two counts of attempted first degree murder in 2002. The trial court imposed a 200-month sentence on each count, to run consecutively. In an untimely collateral attack, Miller argued that "In re Personal Restraint of Mulholland," (166 P.3d 677 (2007)), constituted a significant change in the law retroactively applicable to his sentence. The trial court agreed and ordered resentencing. The Supreme Court rejected Miller's argument and vacated the trial court order. View "Washington v. Miller" on Justia Law

Petitioner Johnny Fuller was charged with two counts of assault in the second degree, each count presenting an alternative means of committing the offense. The jury acquitted Fuller of one count and deadlocked on the other. The trial court declared a mistrial on that count, and the State sought to retry Fuller. Fuller moved to dismiss, arguing that retrial would subject him to re-prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, in violation of double jeopardy. The superior court denied Fuller's motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Washington Supreme Court held that jeopardy never terminated as to the count the State sought to retry, and that the jury's acquittal on the other count was of no consequence. Because retrial did not implicate double jeopardy, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Fuller" on Justia Law

In 2013, Envision Spokane gathered enough signatures to place a local initiative on the ballot that would establish a "Community Bill of Rights." Petitioners filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the Envision Initiative. The petitioners included Spokane County, individual residents of Spokane (including two city council members acting in their individual capacities), for-profit corporations and companies in Spokane (including Pearson Packaging Systems and the utility company A vista Corporation), and nonprofit associations (including the Spokane Association of Realtors, the Spokane Building Owners and Managers Association, the Spokane Home Builders Association, and local chambers of commerce). The trial judge ruled that (1) petitioners had standing to challenge the initiative and (2) the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. She therefore instructed that it be struck from the ballot. Envision Spokane appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing and ordered the initiative be put on the next available ballot. The first issue before the Supreme Court in this case was who has standing to bring those types of challenges. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals created new limits on who can bring such challenges, but the Supreme Court reversed and adhered to existing standards because they adequately ensured that only those affected by an ordinance may challenge it. Applying those existing standards, the Supreme Court found that petitioners in this case had standing to bring this challenge. The second issue in this case was the substance of the petitioners' challenge: whether the initiative's subject matter fell within the scope of authority granted to local residents. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that this local initiative exceeds the scope of local initiative power and should not have been put on the ballot. View "Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution" on Justia Law