Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Jessica Vazquez was convicted of maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances, possessing methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Sarah McFadden, Vazquez’s attorney, objected only once during trial, which resulted in the jury considering highly prejudicial, inadmissible evidence. Vazquez claimed the Court of Appeals did not properly evaluate counsel’s performance and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. After review, the Washington Supreme Court agreed, holding that McFadden’s failure to object to inadmissible evidence fell below the standard for effective performance and that but for McFadden’s lack of objections, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. The appellate court was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Vazquez" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review centered on whether a citizen’s affidavit was sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings under the citizen complaint rule, CrRLJ 2.1(c). Geene Felix was a Washington Department of Social and Health Services social worker who was involved in child welfare matters regarding Thomas Stout’s two children. In 2016, Felix signed two dependency petitions under penalty of perjury, alleging that Stout’s children were dependent. Stout disputed Felix’s factual account in the dependency petitions., alleging that Felix committed the crime of false swearing when she made certain statements in the petitions. The crime of false swearing is a gross misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. In 2018, one day short of two years after Felix filed the dependency petitions, Stout filed an affidavit of complaining witness seeking to institute a citizen complaint against Felix. The court issued a summons notice to Felix, and a probable cause hearing was set for two weeks later. At the December hearing, the court first considered the timeliness issue. Felix argued that a criminal action can be commenced only by the filing of an indictment or complaint, which must be done within the statute of limitations. The court agreed with Felix and ruled that “[a] criminal action is commenced by filing a complaint.” Therefore, because Stout did not file a criminal complaint within the two-year statute of limitations, the court dismissed his citizen complaint as untimely. The court did not reach the merits of the case, and denied reconsideration. He then sought review in the Court of Appeals, and the commissioner denied discretionary review. The Court of Appeals also denied his request to modify the commissioner’s ruling. The Supreme Court commissioner granted discretionary review. The Washington Supreme Court held that under CrRLJ 2.1, criminal proceedings were indeed initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint, and an affidavit under CrRLJ 2.1(c) was only part of the citizen’s request for the court’s approval to file the complaint. Here, the criminal complaint was not filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the citizen complaint as untimely. View "In re Citizen Complaint by Stout v. Felix" on Justia Law

Petitioner Juan Enriquez-Martinez was in custody in Oregon, held on both Washington and Oregon pending charges. For his Washington conviction, he was denied credit for the time he spent in jail in Oregon on a variety of grounds. Finding none of those grounds availing, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for recalculation of the credit to which Petitioner was entitled on his Washington charges. View "Washington v. Enriquez-Martinez" on Justia Law

Reverend George Taylor was a long-time climate activist. Rev. Taylor has made many attempts to mitigate the risks of coal and oil trains passing through Spokane, Washington. After repeated efforts without effect, he organized a peaceful protest on Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF Railway) railroad tracks. As a result, Rev. Taylor was charged with criminal trespass in the second degree and unlawful obstruction of a train. In response, he raised the necessity defense. Rev. Taylor believed his actions were necessary to prevent the imminent harms of climate change and train derailment. Whether the necessity defense was ultimately available to him depended on when a defendant has demonstrated that there were no reasonable legal alternatives to violating the law. This case went before the Washington Supreme Court due to a conflict between Division Three and Division One of the Court of Appeals in Washington v. Ward, 438 P.3d 588, review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1031 (2019). Division Three issued a split decision affirming the superior court, holding that Rev. Taylor could not present the necessity defense because “[t]here are always reasonable legal alternatives to disobeying constitutional laws.” The Supreme Court found that whie there were always alternatives in the abstract, an alternative that repeatedly failed when attempted was not a reasonable alternative. Because Rev. Taylor raised an issue of fact whether his actions were reasonable under the necessity defense, given his previous ineffective efforts to exercise legal alternatives, the Supreme Court reversed on this issue. View "Washington ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane County Dist. Court" on Justia Law

A valuable diamond was stolen from a jewelry store. Within days, Respondent Lynell Denham sold that diamond. Police suspected Denham committed the burglary and got a warrant for his cell phone records. Cell site location information included in those records placed Denham’s phone near the jewelry store around the time of the burglary. Denham contended the affidavits supporting the warrant for his phone records lacked specific facts that would suggest evidence of a crime would be found in those records. He also contended a video interview where he discussed sophisticated burglary techniques was improperly admitted. The Washington Supreme Court found the warrant application contained sufficient detail to conclude evidence of a crime would more likely than not be found in the cell site location information in telephone company records of Denham’s cell phones and that the video recordings were properly admitted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed Denham’s convictions. View "Washington v. Denham" on Justia Law

Christopher Johnson was convicted of child sex crimes. He challenged a condition of community custody as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague: this condition would require Johnson to access the Internet only through filters approved by his community custody officer. The Washington Supreme Court determined that when read in light of Johnson’s convictions for attempted second degree child rape, attempted sexual abuse of a minor, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes, the condition was neither overbroad nor vague. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Washington v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Alan Jenks was sentenced to life without parole under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA), part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA). One of his strikes was second degree robbery, which was removed from the list of most serious offenses in 2019. ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE S.B. (ESSB) 5288, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2019). The amendment came into effect after Jenks’ conviction, when his case was pending before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that the amendment did not apply to his case and upheld his sentence. The Washington Supreme Court was asked whether ESSB 5288 could be applied to Jenks’ case. The State argued it could not due to RCW 9.94A.345 and RCW 10.01.040. The Supreme Court agreed with the State and held ESSB 5288 did not apply to Jenks’ case. “Although this outcome is harsh, the legislature commands this result.” View "Washington v. Jenks" on Justia Law

After attending multiple court hearings in his case for violating a domestic violence no contact order (DVNCO), Samuel Slater missed court the day his case was called for trial. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest, and Slater came to court to quash the warrant just over one month later. The State added a charge of bail jumping for his failure to appear (FTA). Slater moved to sever the charges, alleging that the charges were not cross admissible under an ER 403 and ER 404(b) analysis and that trying the charges together would cause him unfair prejudice and allow for improper propensity arguments as both charges included violation of a court order. Two different judges concluded that the FTA was admissible as flight evidence. Slater appealed, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in not severing the charges as an FTA was not automatically admissible to infer consciousness of guilt, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reversed the convictions, and remanded for the two charges to be severed. “Missing one court hearing does not rise to the level of flight evidence from which one can infer consciousness of guilt on the underlying crime. The judges in this case abused their discretion when they repeatedly denied Slater’s motion to sever the charges because the charges are not cross admissible. Further, although we need not reach this issue, the admission of the FTA as evidence of consciousness of guilt allowed the prosecutor to capitalize on the admission and to make improper comments regarding Slater’s alleged guilt and propensity to violate court orders. This impropriety could not have been cured by a jury instruction and the pretrial rulings effectively allowed the improper arguments during the State’s closing arguments.” View "Washington v. Slater" on Justia Law

The facts in this case were disputed: petitioner Leland Knapp, IV had intercourse with B.S. on Super Bowl Sunday, February 7, 2016; Knapp was high on methamphetamine at the time; and Knapp and B.S. had been friends since high school, when B.S. was Knapp’s boss at a Jack in the Box restaurant. After Knapp left the residence, he was soon stopped by police. Knapp told police, ‘“It’s her word against mine”’ when he deduced that B.S. had called the police to accuse him of rape. B.S. contended Knapp raped her. Police took B.S.’s statement and transported her to the hospital, where an examination revealed genital injuries consistent with rape. A bandana B.S. maintained Knapp used to gag her had genetic material matching B.S.’ saliva and skin cells. Knapp contended B.S. alleged rape as retribution for Knapp’s refusal to give B.S. methamphetamine, for which she often offered sex in exchange. Knapp argued the intercourse was consensual. The question before the Washington Supreme Court in this case was whether the instructions given in Knapp’s trial adequately communicated the appropriate instruction with regard to a party’s burden of proof with respect to rape cases. Washington law previously treated consent as an affirmative defense to rape, but the Supreme Court recently recognized, however, that placing the burden of proving a consent defense on the defendant violated the defendant’s due process rights. Now, “once a defendant asserts a consent defense and provides sufficient evidence to support the defense, the State bears the burden of proving lack of consent as part of its proof of the element of forcible compulsion.” The Court determined the instructions in this case properly informed the jury of the applicable law, were not misleading, and permitted Knapp to argue his theory of the case, therefore, they were constitutionally adequate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Knapp’s conviction. View "Washington v. Knapp" on Justia Law

The Washington Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an order revoking a sexually violent predator’s (SVP) conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (LRA) placement pursuant to RCW 71.09.098 was one of the limited number of superior court orders appealable as of right under Washington's Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court held that it was not; rather, such orders were subject to discretionary review in accordance with RAP 2.3(a). View "In re Det. of McHatton" on Justia Law