Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Brandon Ollivier was convicted for possession of child pornography. On appeal, he contended his rights to a speedy trial under the United States and Washington State Constitution were violated by delay in bringing him to trial. He also contended that evidence obtained in a search of his apartment should have been suppressed because of misrepresentations and other defects in the affidavit in support of probable cause to issue the warrant, and he was not presented with a copy of the search warrant prior to commencement of the search. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the delay in bringing petitioner to trial did not violate speedy trial rights when defendant's own counsel requested the continuances causing the delay and no claim of ineffective counsel was made related to those continuances, that probable cause for the search warrant was sufficiently established by qualifying information in the affidavit, and no violation of CrR 2.3(d) occurred because a copy of the search warrant was posted upon seizure of property pursuant to the warrant. View "Washington v. Ollivier" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Wooten was convicted of first degree malicious mischief for damaging a home he was purchasing on a real estate contract. Petitioner claimed he did not damage "property of another" because he had exclusive possessory and proprietary interests in the property. He also argued the trial court abused its discretion by excluding closing argument about financing issues relating to the home. The Supreme Court concluded after review of the trial court record that Petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the property for the purposes of malicious mischief, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Petitioner's attorney's closing argument. View "Washington v. Wooten" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether Washington's constitutional separation of powers creates a qualified gubernatorial communications privilege that functions as an exemption to the Public Records Act (PRA). Freedom Foundation sued the governor to compel production of documents under the PRA after the governor asserted executive privilege and refused to release them. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that separation of powers principles produced a qualified gubernatorial communications privilege. Because the Foundation made no attempt to overcome this qualified privilege, the trial court granted the governor summary judgment. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Freedom Foundation v. Gregoire" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case was whether the search of Lisa Byrd's purse was a search of her person. Because the purse was in her lap when she was arrested, it was an article of her person under the long-standing "time of arrest" rule. If the arrest was lawful, the arresting officer was entitled to search Byrd's person and articles closely associated with her person without showing the search was motivated by particularized concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded this case for further trial court proceedings. View "Washington v. Byrd" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a trial court may allow a witness to be accompanied by a comfort animal, here a dog, when testifying during trial. Generally, wide discretion is given to the trial court to control proceedings, including the manner in which testimony will be presented. Here, the trial court acted within its broad discretion when it determined that the facility dog provided by the prosecutor's office to the victim was needed in light of the victim's severe developmental disabilities in order for the victim to testify adequately. View "Washington v. Dye" on Justia Law

Dayva Cross pled guilty to killing his wife and two of her three daughters in 2001 for which he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence after direct review. In his first personal restraint petition challenging the judgment and sentence, Cross contended, among other things, that an "Alford" plea was insufficient to support capital punishment and asked the Supreme Court to vacate his sentence and remand to the trial court with direction that the Alford plea be set aside. After review, the Court held that a capital sentence could be predicated on an Alford plea and denied that portion of Cross' personal restraint petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Cross" on Justia Law

Benjamin Brockie was convicted of 2 counts of first degree robbery, 15 counts of first degree kidnapping, and 2 counts of making bomb threats. Brockie asked the Supreme Court to vacate those convictions because the jury was instructed on a means of committing first degree robbery that was not included in the charging information. Since Brockie failed to show actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the erroneous instruction, the court denied his request for relief. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Brockie" on Justia Law

The State charged defendant Jeffrey Lynch with indecent liberties and second-degree rape. At trial, defendant's argued the State failed to prove forcible compulsion because the alleged victim, T.S., consented to the sexual intercourse. Over defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that defendant had the burden to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of the crimes charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's second-degree rape conviction but reversed the indecent liberties conviction. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to control his defense by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense over his objection and that such error was not harmless. View "Washington v. Lynch" on Justia Law

William Kurtz challenged the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm his conviction for possession and manufacturing of marijuana. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request to raise a common law medical necessity defense. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court held that medical necessity remained an available defense to marijuana prosecution and that the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act did not abrogate the common law. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Kurtz" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the Court's holding in "Washington v. Winterstein," (220 P.3d 1226 (2009)) and whether the inevitable discovery doctrine (which was found inconsistent with the Washington constitution) applied retroactively to judgments that were made final when decided. A jury convicted defendant Nadder Haghighi on theft and unlawful issuance of checks or drafts. The underlying issue in this personal restraint petition involved the admissibility of evidence obtained through a warrant issued in Washington, but faxed to the bank's offices in Illinois. A representative at the bank provided records requested by Washington police which did not comply with Illinois' law on domestication of out-of-state warrants. Defendant moved to suppress the records police obtained from Illinois, and appealed the trial court's denial of that motion. He also claimed on appeal he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Upon review of the present case, the Court determined: (1) "Winterstein" did not apply retroactively; and, (2) defendant's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was time barred. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Haghighi" on Justia Law