Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Petitioner Robert May violated a domestic violence protection order that prohibited him from contacting his ex-wife. As a result, Petitioner was convicted under a Seattle ordinance. On appeal, Petitioner contended that the order was invalid and that he received no notice that the "no-contact" provision of the order was a criminal offense. The superior court reversed the municipal court's conviction, but the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court to reinstate the conviction. The Supreme Court in its affirmation of the Court of Appeals concluded: "[Petitioner] made a choice to violate the plain and unambiguous terms of the domestic violence protection order . . . the collateral bar rule precludes [him from challenging] the validity of the domestic violence protection order." The Court found that the protection order itself was notice that he would be prosecuted if he violated its terms. View "City of Seattle v. May" on Justia Law

Petitioners Lisa Mullen and Kevin Dean were prosecuted for stealing funds from their employer, a Skagit County car dealership. At issue before the Supreme Court was the State's duty to disclose exculpating evidence to defendants. After their convictions, Petitioners obtained a previously sealed deposition of the dealership's accountant taken in a separate civil suit between the owner and the accountant's firm. The deposition took place before the end of the criminal trial. In a motion for a new trial, Petitioners argued that the accountant's deposition testimony supported the defense theory that the owner authorized use of the funds. Petitioners contended that the prosecution's failure to disclose the information from the deposition constituted a due process violation under "Brady v. Maryland," 373 U.S. 83. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's finding that there was no due process violation. The Supreme Court agreed after careful consideration of the trial record and the applicable legal authority. The Court found no "Brady" violation, and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not granting Petitioners a new trial. View "Washingotn v. Mullen" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Strandy was convicted of two counts of felony murder and aggravated first degree murder. For sentencing purposes, the trial court merged the murder and aggravated murder convictions, but it did not vacate the felony murder convictions. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred by not vacating the merged murder convictions. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review of the case and found that the trial court's omission constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy. The Court remanded the case to the trial court to vacate Petitioner's two felony murder convictions. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Strandy" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jeremy Anderson was charged with first degree child molestation for alleged contact with a minor child. At trial, a nurse from the child's treating clinic testified to statements made by the child to her. Petitioner challenged the admission of the child's statements made to the nurse as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confronting the witness. The Court of Appeals affirmed their admission, holding that the child's statements to the nurse were "nontestimonial" because the statements were made while the nurse made a medical examination. The Supreme Court found that the statements were "testimonial" in nature, and therefore subject to Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. However, the Court held that any error resulting from admitting the testimony was harmless to Petitioner. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision but on different grounds. View "Washington v. Anderson" on Justia Law

A Seattle street performer's camera caught the shooting death of Franciso Green on tape. Police received several other eyewitness accounts of the shooting and arrested Petitioner Kevin Monday, Jr. in connection with the murder. A jury later found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder and two counts of assault. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that prosecutorial misconduct and the imposition of firearms enhancements in the jury instructions at trial deprived him of a fair trial. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutor "injected racial prejudice into the trial proceedings" by asserting certain witnesses were unreliable and using derogatory language to characterize others. The Court reasoned that these statements "fatally tainted" the jury because it "planted the seed in the jury's mind that most of the witnesses were, at best, shading the truth to benefit [Petitioner]. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the misconduct did not affect the jury's verdict." The Court did not reach Petitioner's "firearms enhancement" argument because it determined he was entitled to a new trial. The Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Monday" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Mutch appealed his sentence of 400 months' imprisonment on rape and kidnapping charges. After his life sentence was vacated several years after his conviction, the trial court imposed an "exceptional" sentence of 400 months at re-sentencing. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant challenged the trial court's authority to impose such a sentence. In particular, Appellant argued that the trial court miscalculated his "offender score," and because of the miscalculation, his 400-month sentence should be invalidated. Upon careful consideration of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's sentence. The Court found that Washington law gives trial courts the authority to impose "exceptional" sentences, and that the court did not miscalculate Appellant's "offender score." Accordingly the Court affirmed Appellant's sentence. View "Washington v. Mutch" on Justia Law

Petitioner Timothy Martin appealed his conviction on kidnapping and robbery charges. His principal claim on appeal was that the State prosecutor violated his constitutional rights when, on cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor inferred Petitioner had tailored his testimony to be consistent with police reports, witness statements and testimony presented by prior witnesses. After a thorough review of the pertinent case law and clauses of the federal and state constitutions, the Supreme Court found no violation of Petitionerâs constitutional rights. The Court affirmed Defendantâs conviction.

Washingtonâs criminal rules authorize a trial judge to release a person before trial, subject to electronic home monitoring (EHM). If convicted of a felony, the defendant is entitled to have the days spent on pretrial EHM credited against any sentence of confinement he or she may receive. Petitioner Joshua Harris pled guilty to two misdemeanors and sought credit for his time spent on EHM. When the trial court did not give him the credit, Petitioner petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful restraint because he did not receive the credit. The Superior Court granted the writ and ordered the trial court to grant the credit. The appellate court reversed the habeas court order. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that according to state law, there were rational bases for treating felons and misdemeanants differently when crediting EHM. Petitioner was not entitled to the credit he sought as a misdemeanant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate courtâs decision to reverse the trial courtâs grant of credit for time served under EHM.

Petitioner Michael Williams drove away from a car dealership without paying for new tires and wheels. An employee called the police, and officers tracked down Petitioner at his girlfriendâs home. Petitioner admitted that he had driven away, but to avoid discovery of an outstanding warrant against him, Petitioner gave a fake name. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree theft, making false statements to an officer, and for obstructing law enforcement by giving a fake name. Petitioner appealed his obstruction conviction, arguing that legislative history and case law show that the trial court misinterpreted the applicable statute. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that obstruction requires more than just a statementâit requires some conduct in addition to making the statement. The Court vacated Petitionerâs conviction on the obstruction charge alone, but affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions in all other respects.

Petitioner Jack Sims appealed only part of his sentence stemming from child molestation charges. As his defense against the charges, Petitioner argued that the contact he had with the victim was an isolated event, and that the evidence supported his contention at trial. The Department of Corrections recommended Petitioner receive a âspecial sex offender sentencing alternativeâ (SSOSA) sentence. The recommendation was supported by testimony from an expert that opined that Petitioner had a very low risk of re-offending. The trial court ordered a lifetime âno-contactâ order, and banished Petitioner from the city and county in which the victim lived. Petitioner challenged the banishment portion of his sentence, arguing that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed that the sentence was unconstitutional, and concluded that the proper remedy in this case would be a resentencing for the limited purpose of narrowly tailoring the geographic condition of Petitionerâs SSOSA sentence that banished him from the county. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.