Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Stephen Eugster filed suit to challenge Washington's process of electing appellate court judges and the court's procedure of assigning cases to three-judge panels. He argued that the process violated the state's constitution. In particular, Petitioner argued that the election process violates the "all elections shall be free and equal" clause of Article I, Section 19. The trial court found that Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and dismissed his case. Upon careful consideration of the state's constitution's history, as well as the legislative and case history pertaining to Washington's election of judges and the process by which cases are heard by the appellate courts, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Eugster v. State" 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

In 2007, the city council of Woodinville (City) unanimously denied two applications submitted by Respondent Phoenix Development, Inc. (Phoenix) to rezone a parcel of undeveloped property. The superior court dismissed Phoenix's petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish that the City failed to follow its own procedure when it denied Phoenix's applications. The Supreme Court found that substantial evidence in the record supported the City's decision to deny Phoenix's requests under the controlling city ordinance. The Court affirmed the superior court's decision to dismiss Phoenix's applications. View "Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City Of Woodinville" on Justia Law

In this case the issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a thirteen-year old was denied due process rights when she was not appointed counsel at a truancy hearing. Despite a district court's order to attend school, E.S. missed classes from 2005 to 2007. At first, E.S. and her mother attended the hearings, but were not represented by counsel, nor did they ask that counsel be present. The court explained that E.S. would be "sentenced" to house arrest, work crew and detention if she did not comply with the order, but she continued to miss school. At E.S.' last court appearance, she was represented by counsel. She was ordered to spend six days in detention with electronic monitoring. E.S., through her attorney, filed a motion to have the home detention set aside, which was denied. The Court of Appeals vacated E.S.' sentence, finding that the child's "interests in her liberty, privacy and right to education [were] in jeopardy" at the truancy hearings, and that due process required counsel at each appearance. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the School District argued that Washington courts never required the appointment of counsel to protect a child's privacy and education interests. The Supreme Court agreed with the District. Upon review of the record, the state constitution and the applicable legal authority, the Court found that E.S. was not denied due process rights because she was not appointed counsel in the initial truancy hearings. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. E.S." on Justia Law

In Fall 2010, former employees and representatives of the Town of Coulee filed a petition to recall Mayor Rick Heiberg. Of eleven charges, only two were found by the courts to be factually and legally sufficient to support a recall election. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that the two surviving claims against the mayor were not legally sufficient to support a recall. The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the recall petition. View "In re Recall of Heiberg" 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 and Washington resident Delbert Williams was employed by an Idaho employment agency. The agency regularly sent him to work for Pro-Set Erectors, an Idaho construction subcontractor. In 2007, Pro-Set was hired by Respondent Leone & Keeble (L&K), a general contractor. L&K is a Washington company. Later that year, Petitioner was injured on the job. He filed a claim with the Idaho State Insurance Fund, who accepted his claim and issued workers' compensation payments. In late 2008, the payments stopped. Petitioner filed suit against L&K in Washington, but the trial court dismissed his petition citing lack of jurisdiction over Petitioner's Idaho workers' compensation claim. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did have jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim: "our courts below...seem to have given deference to opinions of the Idaho courts" instead of applying Washington law. L&K argued that because Petitioner received benefits from Idaho, he was barred from bringing the same claim in Washington. Petitioner's claim was allowed under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act, which fell under the jurisdiction of Washington courts. The Court reversed the decision of the lower courts and remanded Petitioner's case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc." on Justia Law

K.N.J. was born in 2005 to Marquesha Everett and Petitioner Michael Jenkins. K.N.J. suffered extreme abuse at the hands of her mother. After discovery of the abuse, K.N.J. was removed from her mother's care and placed in foster care. Petitioner was served with a summons and petition for a dependency hearing. A judge pro tempore presided over the initial hearing. The mother consented to the judge's hearing the case. Petitioner did not appear and was not represented by counsel. The judge pro tempore entered a default order of dependency despite her status and Petitioner's lack of consent. Subsequent hearings were held, and an elected judge presided over them. Petitioner did not appear until the permanency planning hearing. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the original dependency order was void because Petitioner did not consent to a judge pro tempore. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss and terminated his parental rights. Petitioner appealed the termination to the Supreme Court. The Court found that K.N.J.'s dependency was amply proved at the termination trial where Petitioner was present and represented by counsel. Furthermore the trial court's findings supported the termination of Petitioner's parental rights. The Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court.