Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved the issue of whether and to what extent superior courts have authority to intervene in the administration of nonintervention estates. Todd Rathbone was named personal representative of his mother's estate in her nonintervention will. Glen Rathbone, Todd's' brother and beneficiary of the will, took issue with Todd's administration of the estate and filed a petition requesting an accountancy under RCW 11.68.110. He then filed an action under chapter 11.96A RCW, the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (TEDRA), requesting the trial court construe the will in his favor. The trial court held it had the authority to construe the will under RCW 11.68.070 and, in the alternative, TEDRA itself gave the trial court authority to construe the will. The court ruled in favor of Glen's construction of the will and overrode the interpretation of Todd. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court had authority to construe the will but on the separate basis that Glen had invoked authority under RCW 11.68.110 when he filed his petition for an accounting. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutory provisions under TEDRA did not give the trial court authority to construe the will in this case. Furthermore, the Court held the authority invoked under the nonintervention statutes, such as RCW 11.68.110 and .070, was limited to resolving issues provided under each statute. View "In re Estate of Rathbone" on Justia Law

FutureSelect Portfolio Management Inc. sought to challenge a 2011 Superior Court order granting KPMG LLP's motion to compel arbitration. Lead plaintiff FutureSelect was headquartered in Washington state, and managed a number of investment funds. The second named defendant, Tremont Partners Inc., was headquartered in New York and served as the general partner to the Rye Funds, whose status as feeder funds to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) was at the heart of this dispute. Tremont allegedly offered FutureSelect a valuable opportunity to invest with BMIS, and made assurances regarding its oversight and understanding of BMIS's operation. Relying on these assurances and the audit opinions of the accounting firm hired by Tremont, FutureSelect decided to invest in the Rye Funds in 1998. Between 1998 and late 2008, when BMIS's Ponzi scheme finally came to light, FutureSelect continued investing additional funds in the Rye Funds allegedly based on the representations it regularly received from Tremont and its auditors. In all, FutureSelect invested $195 million with Tremont. FutureSelect argued that the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing its appeal as untimely because either the relevant law changed after 2011 in the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Hill V. Garda CL Northwest, Inc., 308 P.3d 635 (2013), the 2016 appeal followed entry of a final judgment against another defendant, or discretionary review was appropriate. Because none of these rationales provided a basis for FutureSelect's untimely appeal, the Washington Court upheld the Court of Appeals' order of dismissal. View "Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Charles Fletcher was found not guilty by reason of insanity of assault and related crimes in 2013. The judge ordered him committed. Fletcher initiated the process for obtaining release in 2015 by mailing a motion for release directly to the superior court judge. The court directed Fletcher to file with Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) instead, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s consideration centered on the self-petition process. If a criminal defendant was acquitted due to insanity, the judge must then decide what to do with him or her. An acquitted person who constitutes a substantial danger to others, or who presents a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless kept under further control of the court, other persons, or institutions, "shall" be committed under Washington’s involuntary commitment statute, RCW 10.77.110(1). If those safety concerns disappear, the insanity acquittee must be released. Either DSHS or the insanity acquittee may initiate the process for obtaining such release. The Court held that the insanity acquittee may petition the court directly for conditional release. Furthermore, he or she is entitled to legal counsel once a petition for conditional release is filed with the court or an application for release is submitted to DSHS. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the superior court for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Charles Fletcher was found not guilty by reason of insanity of assault and related crimes in 2013. The judge ordered him committed. Fletcher initiated the process for obtaining release in 2015 by mailing a motion for release directly to the superior court judge. The court directed Fletcher to file with Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) instead, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s consideration centered on the self-petition process. If a criminal defendant was acquitted due to insanity, the judge must then decide what to do with him or her. An acquitted person who constitutes a substantial danger to others, or who presents a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless kept under further control of the court, other persons, or institutions, "shall" be committed under Washington’s involuntary commitment statute, RCW 10.77.110(1). If those safety concerns disappear, the insanity acquittee must be released. Either DSHS or the insanity acquittee may initiate the process for obtaining such release. The Court held that the insanity acquittee may petition the court directly for conditional release. Furthermore, he or she is entitled to legal counsel once a petition for conditional release is filed with the court or an application for release is submitted to DSHS. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the superior court for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Petitioner Donald Herrick was an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP) awaiting trial after stipulating to probable cause and agreeing to be evaluated by the State's expert. At the request of the State's expert and pursuant to ROW 71.09.050(1), the trial court ordered Herrick to submit to penile plethysmograph (PPG) and polygraph tests. Herrick refused to comply with the court order, which resulted in a finding of contempt. Herrick brought a facial and as-applied challenge to the statute, and he also challenged the lawfulness of the contempt order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Washington Supreme Court found that compelled PPG testing pursuant to court order in accordance with RCW 71.09.050(l)(c) complied with substantive due process, including in Herrick's case. Therefore, finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Det. of Herrick" on Justia Law

Petitioner Donald Herrick was an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP) awaiting trial after stipulating to probable cause and agreeing to be evaluated by the State's expert. At the request of the State's expert and pursuant to ROW 71.09.050(1), the trial court ordered Herrick to submit to penile plethysmograph (PPG) and polygraph tests. Herrick refused to comply with the court order, which resulted in a finding of contempt. Herrick brought a facial and as-applied challenge to the statute, and he also challenged the lawfulness of the contempt order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Washington Supreme Court found that compelled PPG testing pursuant to court order in accordance with RCW 71.09.050(l)(c) complied with substantive due process, including in Herrick's case. Therefore, finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Det. of Herrick" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Donna Zink and the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) sought reversal of a published Court of Appeals decision, which affirmed the trial court's summary judgment ruling in favor of respondents, John Does G, I, and J (John Does). This case presented two issues: (1) whether special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) evaluations were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 ROW, because they contained "health care information;" and (2) whether pseudonymous litigation was proper in this action. In July 2014, Zink sent a PRA request to the DOC for all SSOSA evaluations "held, maintained, in the possession of or owned" by the DOC since 1990. The DOC responded to Zink, intending to release the SSOSA evaluations on an installment basis. The DOC explained that it would review the SSOSA evaluations and make appropriate redactions as required under the PRA before disclosure. The John Does obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevented the DOC from releasing any SSOSA evaluations of level I sex offenders. Upon the TRO's expiration, the trial court granted the John Does a preliminary injunction. The Washington Supreme Court held the SSOSA evaluations did not contain "health care information" because they were forensic examinations done for the purpose of aiding a court in sentencing a sex offender. The Court also held that pseudonymous litigation was improper in this action because the trial court did not adhere to the requirements of article 1, section 10 of the Washington Constitution and General Rule (OR) 15. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. View "John Doe G v. Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

The issue before the Washington Supreme Court centered on whether a prosecutor's closing argument asserting a victim was "groomed" by the defendant, where testimony of grooming was disallowed during trial, constituted flagrant and illintentioned misconduct requiring reversal. The Court of Appeals granted Todd Phelps's personal restraint petition (PRP) and reversed his convictions for third degree rape and sexual misconduct with a minor. The Court of Appeals held that expert testimony was required if the State intended to rely on grooming to argue and prove its case. Thus, because the prosecutor did not provide expert testimony, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence during his closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed on both issues and held that under the facts and charges involved in this case, expert testimony on grooming was not required and the use of the term "grooming" during closing argument did not amount to arguing facts not in evidence. The prosecutor also did not commit flagrant and illintentioned misconduct, nor did Phelps show that if misconduct occurred it caused him actual and substantial prejudice. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Phelps" on Justia Law

The trial court found that Oscar Lopez's lawyer was "fairly obvious[ly]" "severely handicapped" by depression during the pretrial and trial phases of Lopez's case. That finding was supported by the trial court's own observations. Based on that evidence, the trial court concluded that Lopez was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and granted Lopez's motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding amongst other things, defendants had no right to counsel free from mental illness. Lopez petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review, which agreed with the trial court that Lopez was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and reversed the Court of Appeal which reversed the trial court. View "Washington v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Eddie Arnold challenged his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of ROW 9A.44.130. He argued he was not required to register because his 1988 conviction of statutory rape in violation of a statute amended in 1979, was not a "sex offense" within the meaning of the current sex offender registration statute. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed: the prior sex offense of which Arnold was convicted met the two critical prerequisites to a countable "sex offense" listed in former RCW 9.94A.030(46)(b) (2012): (1) that prior conviction was based on a statute that was 'in effect . . . prior to July 1, 1976" and (2) that prior conviction was based on a statute that is "comparable" to a current "sex offense" as defined in former RCW 9.94A.030(46)(a) (2012). The Court of Appeals felt bound by prior decisions of the two other divisions of the Court of Appeals, labeling this deference to a prior out-of-division decision a rule of "horizontal stare decisis." The Supreme Court rejected this rule, finding it conflicted with the statutes establishing the powers and duties of the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court itself: “it conflicts with court rules on those topics, it conflicts with prior decisions, and it would tend to diminish the robust, adversarial development of the law that is the gem of our current approach. We therefore reverse.” View "In re Pers. Restraint of Arnold" on Justia Law