Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner James John Chambers Jr. was charged with several crimes arising from three incidents that occurred in 1999. Before committing the November crimes, Petitioner plead guilty to charges resulting from the February and May incidents. Prior to sentencing on these charges, Petitioner entered into an agreement that provided that he would plead guilty to the November crimes and stipulate to a 240 month sentence to run consecutively to the sentences for the February and May crimes. Petitioner was sentenced for the February and May crimes and pled guilty to the November crimes on the same date. He was sentenced for the November crimes at a subsequent hearing. Several years later, Petitioner filed personal restraint petitions (PRPs), seeking to withdraw his plea to the February charges and argued that his sentence on the November charges was incorrectly calculated. The trial court granted his motion to withdraw his February plea but denied his request for resentencing on the November charges. The Court of Appeals consolidated the PRPs and reversed, holding that the pleas were indivisible and declining to consider the validity of the sentence arising from the November crimes. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner entered into a global plea agreement that was indivisible and that he failed to demonstrate that his 240 month sentence was calculated in error. View "Washington v. Chambers" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the conflicting authority on which the standard of review applies to a sentencing court's determination of "same criminal conduct" under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). Defendant Julio Cesar Aldano Graciano was charged by amended information with four counts of first degree rape of a child and two counts of first degree child molestation relating to E.R. The jury was instructed that a guilty verdict required unanimous agreement on which act was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was further instructed that the acts constituting each count must be separate and distinct from one another. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. Furthermore, the jury found Defendant not guilty of the molestation charge relating to a second child, J.R. At sentencing, defense counsel argued the crimes should have been considered the "same criminal conduct" under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) for purposes of calculating Defendant's offender score. Both Defendant and the State sought review of the trial court's sentence. The Court of Appeals (Division Two) reviewed the trial court's determination de novo, adopting the reasoning of Division Three in "Washington v. Torngren," (196 P.3d 742 (2008)). The Torngren Court acknowledged a long line of precedent stating the proper standard is abuse of discretion but held that a de novo standard “seem[s] more appropriate." The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court reaffirmed that determinations of same criminal conduct are reviewed for abuse of discretion or misapplication of law, and concluded that the sentencing judge acted within her discretion in declining to find that Defendant's crimes constituted the same criminal conduct. The Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's sentence. View "Washington v. Aldana Graciano" on Justia Law

Brandon Afoa was paralyzed in an accident while he was working at Sea-Tac Airport and sought to recover from the Port of Seattle on three theories the Supreme Court applied in other multiemployer workplace cases: as a business invitee; for breach of safety regulations under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA); and the duty of a general contractor to maintain a safe common area for any employee of subcontractors. The Court concluded that the same principles that apply to other multiemployer workplaces apply to Sea-Tac and that a jury could find the Port (which owns and operates the airport) liable under any of these three theories. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing Afoa's claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Afoa v. Port of Seattle" on Justia Law

The City of Seattle and Officers Kevin McDaniel and Pohna Lim challenged an appellate court's decision affirming the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. Respondent Elsa Robb, on behalf of her deceased husband Michael Robb, alleged that law enforcement acted negligently by failing to pick up and remove shotgun shells lying near Samson Berhe after stopping him on suspicion of burglary. After the stop, Berhe returned to retrieve the cartridges, and shortly thereafter used one of them to kill Michael Robb. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 302B may create an independent duty to protect against the criminal acts of a third party where the actor’s own affirmative act creates or exposes another to the recognizable high degree of risk of harm. However, the Court also held that in this case, the police officer’s failure to pick up shotgun shells lying near defendants in a "Terry" stop was not an affirmative act as contemplated by the Restatement. Therefore the Court reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Robb v. City of Seattle" on Justia Law

This action stemmed from a contract for construction of a baseball stadium and home field for the Seattle Mariners baseball team. In its first trip to the Supreme Court, "Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Construction Company," (202 P.3d 924 (2009) (PFD I)), the Court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the owner’s suit against the general contractor because the action was brought for the benefit of the State, and therefore the exemption from the statute of limitations set out in RCW 4.16.160 applied. This case raised questions about whether the construction statute of repose barred suit against the general contractor and, if not, whether the general contractor may pursue third party claims against two of its subcontractors. The trial court granted summary judgment of dismissal in favor of the general contractor and the subcontractors on statute of repose grounds. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court: "the statute of repose does not bar suit against the general contractor. In accord with several provisions in the subcontracts, the subcontractors are subject to liability to the same extent that the general contractor may be liable for any defective materials or work under the subcontracts. Thus, the trial court erred in holding that the statute of repose bars Hunt Kiewit’s third party claims against the subcontractors." View "Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the sealing of juror questionnaires amounted to a trial closure, implicating a defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to a public trial. Questionnaires were given to and completed by prospective jurors to assist counsel in jury selection and to possibly identify who would be individually questioned outside the presence of the entire venire but in open court. Several days after the jury was selected, the trial court sealed the questionnaires. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the right to a public trial had not been violated. However, the court held that the trial court’s failure to conduct a "Bone-Club" analysis before sealing the questionnaires was inconsistent with the public’s right of open access to court records and remanded the case for reconsideration of the sealing order. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Washington v. Beskurt" on Justia Law

Defendant Jon Strine was charged with and tried for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault after he crashed his vehicle into a motorcycle carrying a married couple. After a two-day deliberation, the jury returned verdict forms finding Defendant “not guilty” on both charges. The trial judge polled the jury on the mistaken belief that polling was required. Six jurors dissented from the original verdict and the presiding juror stated that the jury would be unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The trial judge declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. Defendant then moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds but the trial court denied the motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision, finding that double jeopardy clause does not prevent the State from reprosecuting Defendant because his original jeopardy never terminated. View "Washington v. Strine" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court in this case. A Clark County deputy sheriff sought to proceed to trial and recover damages from Burger King Corporation under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) on a claim that he suffered ongoing emotional distress from discovering he was served a burger with phlegm inside the bun. Specifically, the issue was whether, in the absence of physical injury, the WPLA permits relief for emotional distress damages caused by being served and touching, but not consuming, the contaminated food product. The Supreme Court concluded that the WPLA permits relief in such circumstances, provided that the emotional distress is a reasonable reaction and "manifest by objective symptomatology." View "Bylsma v. Burger King Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner Bryan Allen challenged his felony harassment conviction, raising three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the potential fallibility of cross-racial eyewitness identification; (2) whether the “true threat” requirement is an essential element of a harassment statute that must be pleaded in the information and included in the "to-convict" instruction; and (3) alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals rejected the arguments raised. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Allen" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on an insured's duty to cooperate with an insurer's claim investigation. Petitioner John Staples' claim was denied for failing to cooperate, namely failing to submit to an examination under oath (EUO). Petitioner sued the insurer for bad faith and related causes of action; the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that genuine issues of fact still existed and made summary judgment inappropriate in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law