Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner John Hurst was charged with a felony, but he was found incompetent to stand trial. He was twice committed to a mental health treatment facility. After two 90-day periods in the facility, Petitioner failed to regain competency. The State sought a third and final mental health treatment period, lasting this time for up to 180 days. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the standard of proof required to commit an incompetent criminal defendant charged with a felony to a third mental health treatment period. Petitioner alleged that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution requires that the standard of proof be "clear, cogent and convincing evidence." The Supreme Court disagreed: "the legislature's selected preponderance of the evidence standard satisfied the Due Process Clause." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate court. View "Washington v. Hurst" on Justia Law

A person under arrest for vehicular assault is subject to a mandatory blood test. Prior to the test administered in this case, the arresting trooper asked an interpreter to read the special evidence warning in Spanish to Petitioner Jose Morales. The trooper did not speak Spanish, and could not verify that the warning was actually read to Petitioner. The interpreter was not called to testify at trial nor was any signed special evidence form introduced into evidence. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner was not adequately informed of his right to an independent blood test. View "Washington v. Morales" on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a fact-finding hearing of "rapid recidivism" was a "sentencing" hearing exempt from the state rules of evidence. After a bench trial, the superior court found Petitioner James Griffin guilty of residential burglary. At sentencing, the judge imposed an exception sentence above the standard range, finding the existence of the aggravating circumstance. In making its determination that the aggravating circumstance existed, the court relied on inadmissible hearsay from the trial. Petitioner appealed his exceptional sentence. Though the appellate court agreed with Petitioner that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay, it affirmed the exceptional sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, vacated the exceptional sentence and remanded the case for resentencing: "[o]n remand the trial court may receive evidence to justify imposition of the exceptional sentence, and the rules of evidence apply to [Petitioner's] resentencing." View "Washington v. Griffin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was the overall adequacy of state funding for K-12 education under the Washington State Constitution. "The legislature must develop a basic education program geared toward delivering the constitutionally required education, and it must fully fund that program through regular and dependable tax sources." The Court found that the State failed to meet its duty under the constitution by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that fell short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature enacted reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and the Court deferred to the legislature's chosen means of discharging its duty. However, the Court retained jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State's plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. The Court directed the parties to provide further briefing to the Court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction. View "McCleary v. Washington" on Justia Law

Petitioners Roger Scherner and Michael Gresham were separately charged with child molestation. At trial, relying on the recently enacted RCW 10.58.090, the State successfully introduced evidence that Scherner and Gresham had previously committed sex offenses against other children. In Scherner's case, the superior court ruled that evidence of his prior acts of molestation was also admissible for the purpose of demonstrating a common scheme or plan. In Gresham's case, a different superior court held that evidence of Gresham's prior conviction for second degree assault with sexual motivation was only admissible pursuant to RCW 10.58.090. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court in Scherner's case did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence for the purpose of showing a common scheme or plan and that its failure to give a limiting instruction, once requested, was harmless error. The Court therefore affirmed Scherner's conviction. Because RCW 10.58.090 irreconcilably conflicted with ER 404(b) and governed a procedural matter, the Court held that its enactment violated the separation of powers doctrine and was accordingly unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court held that the admission of evidence of Gresham's prior conviction was not harmless error and reversed his conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Gresham" on Justia Law

Respondent Robert Breitung was convicted of assaulting Ossie Cook and Richard Stevenson and of unlawfully possessing a firearm. Cook and Stevenson, both auto mechanics, took a client's truck for a test drive. During the drive they stopped for cigarettes. While at the smoke shop, Cook noticed a woman enter a black sports car and leave. When they left, Cook and Stevenson followed the same route as this woman and continued down a nearby gravel road. As they were leaving, Respondent appeared and walked into the middle of the gravel road ahead of the truck. According to Cook and Stevenson, as they approached Respondent, he pulled a handgun from behind his back, walked to the driver's side window, and pointed it at both men, telling them to stop following his girl friend. At trial, the State proposed jury instructions for second degree assault and second degree unlawful possession. Defense counsel proposed no additional instructions, and Respondent was convicted on all three counts. The Court of Appeals reversed Respondent's assault convictions, holding that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request lesser included offense instructions on fourth degree assault. The court also reversed Respondent's conviction for unlawful possession, holding that where as part of a prior conviction the court fails to give notice required by statute, a subsequent conviction for unlawful possession is invalid. Based on the Supreme Court's analysis in "Washington v. Grier," (246 P.3d 1260 (2011)), the Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the ineffectiveness claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the appellate court in its decision on the failure to give the statutorily required notice of firearm prohibition as part of a prior conviction, finding Washington law "required" reversal of Respondant's possession conviction. View "Washington v. Breitung" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved the authority of the Department of Corrections (Department) to deduct funds from an inmate’s trust account. Defendant Chad Alan Pierce filed a personal restraint petition challenging the Department's collection of costs of incarceration and legal financial obligations (LFOs) from his account. He asserted that his judgment and sentence prohibits the Department from making such deductions. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Department has statutory authority to deduct costs of incarceration independent of the judgment and sentence. In addition, the Department could deduct LFOs while Defendant was confined, and need not issue a notice of payroll deduction before initiating its collection efforts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's personal restraint petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Pierce" on Justia Law

In 2007, five developers filed applications with the city of Yelm (City) for preliminary plat approval of proposed subdivisions. The only developer still party to this action, TTPH 3-8, LLC (Tahoma Terra), sought approval to develop 32 acres into residential lots. After a hearing examiner granted Tahoma Terra preliminary plat approval, Petitioner JZ Knight, a nearby property owner and senior water rights holder, appealed to the Yelm City Council (City Council), arguing the hearing examiner's conditional approval of the plats erroneously allowed the developers and the City to delay showing adequate water provisions for the subdivision until the building permit stage. The City Council affirmed the preliminary approvals, and Petitioner filed suit in superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Petitioner had standing to bring the LUPA action. Upon review, the Court held that Petitioner established that the land use decision was likely to prejudice her water rights and satisfied the statutory standing requirement. View "Knight v. City of Yelm" on Justia Law

The primary issue presented by this case was whether the State had jurisdiction over members of Indian tribes who sold unstamped cigarettes without a license at a store that located on trust allotment land outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation. In 2007 and 2008, agents of the Washington State Liquor Control Board purchased cigarettes from the "Indian Country Store" in Puyallup. The cigarette cartons and packs that were purchased did not contain Washington or tribal tax stamps. Consequently, in July 2008 agents went to the store again with a warrant and seized 37,000 cartons of unstamped cigarettes. The owner of the Indian Country Store at the time was Defendant Edward Comenout, an enrolled member of the Quinault Indian Nation. His brother, Robert Comenout Sr., and his nephew, Robert Comenout Jr., were engaged in running the store on a daily basis. Robert Sr. is an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes and Robert Jr. is an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation. The Indian Country Store, despite its name, was not on an Indian reservation, but on two trust allotments outside the boundary of any reservation. The State charged all three Comenouts in Pierce County Superior Court with (1) engaging in the business of purchasing, selling, consigning, or distributing cigarettes without a license; (2) unlawful possession or transportation of unstamped cigarettes; and (3) first degree theft. Edward, who was the alleged principal, moved to dismiss on grounds that the State lacked jurisdiction, joined by Robert Sr. and Robert Jr. The superior court denied the motions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Comenouts were not exempt from Washington’s cigarette tax. Because RCW 82.24.110 and .500 criminalize the possession of unstamped cigarettes and the unlicensed sale of cigarettes, the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the charges. View "Washington v. Comenout" on Justia Law

"R.P.H." appealed a superior court's denial of his petition to restore his right to possess firearms. In 2000, 13-year-old R.P.H. pled guilty to one count of first degree child rape for sexually assaulting his 11- and 6-year-old sisters. At sentencing, the King County Juvenile Court accepted the State’s recommendation to impose a special sexual offender disposition alternative that included a suspended term of commitment, 12 months of community supervision, sexual deviancy counseling, and various other conditions, including a requirement that R.P.H. "[n]ot possess or use a weapon of any kind." At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court suggested that R.P.H.’s right to possess a firearm could be restored if he successfully completed treatment. Thereafter, R.P.H. successfully completed treatment and fulfilled the other conditions of his alternative disposition. In 2007, R.P.H. petitioned the King County Superior Court to relieve him of the obligation to register as a sex offender and to reinstate his right to possess firearms. The superior court granted R.P.H.'s request to terminate the registration requirement, but denied his motion to restore his right to possess firearms, noting a concern over R.P.H.'s traffic infractions. In ints review, the Supreme Court found it necessary to address only R.P.H.'s assertion that because the requirement he register as a sex offender was terminated by the superior court, his right to possess firearms should be restored. The Court considered the superior court's order discharging R.P.H. from registration as a sex offender to be the equivalent of a certificate of rehabilitation, and therefore, R.P.H. should not be barred from exercising his right to possess firearms. The Court reversed the superior court's decision with respect to R.P.H.'s right to possess firearms. View "Washington v. R.P.H." on Justia Law