Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Heidi Fero called emergency responders seeking help for an injured child. Minutes later, paramedics arrived and found fifteen-month-old Brynn Ackley unconscious and limp, with bruising on her face. Brynn's treating physicians later determined that she had suffered severe and debilitating injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Fero was charged and convicted of first degree child assault. In 2014, many years after her judgment became final, she filed a personal restraint petition contending that the medical community's evolving understanding of shaken baby syndrome was newly discovered evidence that would undermine the expert evidence as to the causes and timing of Brynn's injuries. The Washington Supreme Court held that this evidence would not have changed the result at trial, and therefore dismissed Fero's petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Fero" on Justia Law

Petitioner Eduardo Sandoval was a member of the Tacoma-based Eastside Lokotes Surefios (ELS) gang. In a stolen van, ELS members pulled up to a car and fired no less than 12 gunshots from at least two firearms into the passenger door. The driver, Camilla Love, was hit three times and died from her injuries. The passenger, Joshua Love, was hit two times but survived. The van occupants targeted the Loves on the mistaken belief that Joshua Love was a Pirus gang member. At the time, the van occupants were seeking out rival Pirus members to retaliate for an earlier driveby shooting targeting ELS members, including Sandoval. In this personal restraint petition (PRP) concerning complicity charges based on murder by extreme indifference, the Washington Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s contentions that accomplice liability for murder by extreme indifference and conspiracy to commit murder by extreme indifference were not cognizable offenses. Furthermore, the Court held the trial court erred in failing to give a requested lesser included instruction on manslaughter, and on this limited basis the Court granted the PRP and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Sandoval" on Justia Law

This case involved interpretation of chapter 7.90 RCW, the Sexual Assault Protection Order (SAPO) Act. In this case, the commissioner granted petitioner Megan Roake's temporary SAPO, and it was served. Respondent Maxwell Delman moved to dismiss, challenging both the assertion of nonconsensual assault and the claim of reasonable fear of future dangerous conduct. At the later hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, holding that Roake's petition was legally insufficient because the petition failed to allege a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts. Roake appealed the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that the final order statute, RCW 7.90.090, did not require proof of a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts. It further held that the SAPO Act provided no basis for considering the validity of the temporary order in determining whether to grant a final protection order. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that RCW 7.90.130(2)(e) provided the procedure and opportunity to contest the sufficiency and validity of the petition and temporary order, and that the trial court correctly held that Roake's petition was legally insufficient under RCW 7.90.020(1). View "Roake v. Delman" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the invited error doctrine applied to Hector Serano Salinas's personal restraint petition (PRP), which argued for the first time on collateral review that his public trial right was violated by private questioning of some potential jurors in chambers and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the public trial right violation on direct review. Based on the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court held Salinas invited the courtroom closure error that he now argued on appeal, and was precluded from raising that error. Further, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Weaver v. Massachusetts, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017), the Washington Court held Salinas's assertion of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel failed because he did not meet his burden of showing that he was prejudiced by the courtroom closure error. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Serano Salinas" on Justia Law

Following a search of Marco Wences' car in 2003, the State charged him with possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) with intent to manufacture or deliver. The State also alleged that Wences was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. A jury convicted Wences of all charges in 2005. The trial court instructed the jury that a firearm was a deadly weapon, and the jury answered "yes" to a special verdict form that asked whether Wences was "armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime." The question this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review was whether the rule announced in Washington v. Williams-Walker, 225 P.3d 913 (2010), applied to appellate review of Wences' 2015 sentence. Williams-Walker held that the Washington Constitution prohibited a sentencing court from imposing a firearm enhancement based on a deadly weapon special verdict finding. In 2005, Wences did not appear for a scheduled sentencing hearing. Concluding that Wences "should not benefit from changes in the law that apply to him solely because he absconded and delayed his sentencing," the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's decision to impose the firearm enhancement based on pre-Williams-Walker law. The Washington Supreme Court held, however, that this result was impermissible under settled law. The Court therefore reversed the appellate court and remanded this case for resentencing consistent with Williams-Walker. View "Washington v. Wences" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review centered on application of RCW 9.73.030 of the Washington privacy act to an inadvertent recording on a cell phone voice mail of a domestic violence assault. The Court held that the recording in this case did not contain a "conversation" within the meaning of the privacy act. Further, even if the recorded verbal exchange here could be considered a private conversation within the privacy act, nevertheless an exception contained in the privacy act applies, rendering the recording admissible. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals to the extent it held otherwise. View "Washington v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner Anthony Joseph was convicted of second degree criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of second degree vehicle prowling. He challenged his conviction on the ground that unlawful entry into a vehicle is not a trespass "in or upon premises of another." This case presented a “challenging” question of statutory interpretation because of the overlapping and intersecting definitions of "building" and "premises" in Title 9A RCW. The Court of Appeals affirmed Joseph's conviction, concluding that a vehicle was a "premises" for the purpose of the second degree trespass statute because a vehicle is a type of "building" and "premises" includes "any building." The Washington Supreme Court concluded the legislature plainly intended second degree criminal trespass to encompass trespass into any "building" as defined in the criminal code, RCW 9A.04.110(5), save for trespass into a building in its ordinary sense. This interpretation properly restricts first degree trespass to unlawful entries into ordinary "buildings," a descriptor that needed no further definition. The more severe charge (a gross misdemeanor) was justified by the increased likelihood of trespass into a home or business. All other trespasses fall under the term "premises" and are treated as simple misdemeanors. RCW 9A.52.080. This includes trespasses into premises that are "buildings" broadly conceived, but are not ordinarily thought of as buildings—as relevant here, vehicles. View "Washington v. Joseph" on Justia Law

In 2015, a Chelan County deputy sheriff arrested Robert Bowie for driving while under the influence (DUI). Bowie received appropriate RCW 46.20.308 warnings about his right to refuse a breath test, signed the implied consent form, and agreed to take that breath test. But 20 minutes later, just before administering the test, the deputy asked Bowie if he would provide a "voluntary" sample. This time Bowie declined. The State charged Bowie with DUI plus a refusal enhancement. The district court granted Bowie's motion to suppress evidence of his refusal. It ruled that the deputy's statement that the test was "voluntary" was "inaccurate[]" and "potentially" misleading. The Superior Court then denied the State's interlocutory petition for a writ of review. The Washington Supreme Court granted direct review of that decision and affirmed. The Supreme Court held RCW 7.16.040 governed the availability of the writ of review in superior court. This statutory writ of certiorari is an "extraordinary remedy." Superior court review via writ was not available in this case. View "Washington v. Chelan County Dist. Court" on Justia Law

An officer from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife saw respondent Eric Cruz illegally "snag" a salmon in the Similkameen River. McCormick arrested Cruz for this misdemeanor fishing violation. The officer handcuffed Cruz, searched his body, and found no weapons, but further questioned the handcuffed Cruz about whether he had weapons elsewhere. Cruz truthfully acknowledged that he had firearms in his truck. A still-handcuffed Cruz was locked in the back of the patrol car while the officer removed three guns from Cruz's truck. The officer did not have, and never sought, a search warrant. The State subsequently charged Cruz, who had a prior felony, with three counts of second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. Cruz moved to suppress the firearms. The trial court agreed with Cruz. The State then moved to dismiss. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed with prejudice. The State then appealed the suppression order, but not the dismissal order. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the rule of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343, (2009),and Washington v. Snapp, 275 P.3d 289 (2012) was the controlling case law in this matter, or whether the rule of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), as extended to vehicles in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) provided the framework for analysis instead. But a procedural issue became apparent after the Washington Supreme Court granted review. The State's failure to assign error to the order of dismissal. The Court surmised there were three critical problems with the State's appeal in a situation like this: first, the State failed to assign error to the order of dismissal, in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(4); the State failed to brief and argue the propriety of the order of dismissal, in violation of another RAP (RAP 10.3(a)(6)); and the State was the party that "invited" the trial court to enter the dismissal order that it complained about here. Characterizing the "notice of appeal [as being] from the order of suppression and dismissal," as the amended notice of appeal did, fails to solve these invited error, failure to brief, and failure to assign error problems. Here, even if the Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, "the case below would still be at an end." The Court thus dismissed this appeal. View "Washington v. Cruz" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the trial court in Ascencion Salgado-Mendoza's trial for driving under the influence abused its discretion by refusing to suppress the testimony of the State's toxicology witness. The State initially disclosed the names of nine toxicologists, indicating it intended to call "one of the following" to testify. The State eventually whittled the list down to three names the day before trial, but did not specify which toxicologist it would call until the morning of trial. Salgado-Mendoza moved to suppress the toxicologist's testimony under CrRLJ 8.3(b) based on late disclosure. The trial court refused, finding no actual prejudice to the defense and observing that the practice of disclosing a list of available toxicologists rather than a specific witness was driven more by underfunding of the crime labs than trial mismanagement. The superior court found the trial court abused its discretion and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the delayed disclosure violated the discovery rules and caused prejudice. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, finding that while the State's disclosure practice may have amounted to mismanagement, Salgado-Mendoza did not demonstrate actual prejudice to justify suppression. View "Washington v. Salgado-Mendoza" on Justia Law