Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In consolidated criminal cases, the issue common to both was whether a defendant could waive his right to a public trial under article I, section 22 and/or article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution. In "State v. Frawley" the Court of Appeals reversed Brian Frawley's conviction for first degree felony murder because the trial court closed the courtroom without performing a "Bone-Club" analysis. In "State v. Applegate," the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's determination of aggravating factors supporting Ronald Applegate's exceptional sentence for his 2005 conviction for rape of a child because the defendant waived his public trial right. In both cases, because the State did not establish waiver, the Supreme Court affirmed Frawley and reversed Applegate. View "Washington v. Frawley" on Justia Law

Anthony Koss was convicted of first degree burglary. Before jury deliberations, the judge and counsel met in chambers. Immediately afterwards, the judge stated in open court that she had given counsel the jury instructions and had made a requested change in one instruction. Koss therefore inferred, and the State agreed that it was an in-chambers instructions conference. Koss challenged that procedure for the first time on appeal. Recent controlling precedent of the Supreme Court held that he could raise this constitutional claim for the first time on appeal and that the trial court must address several factors on the record before closing a proceeding to which the constitutional right to a public trial attaches. But recent precedent also held that the constitutional right to a public trial did not extend to a preliminary instructions conference. In addition to the jury instruction conference, Koss argued that the trial judge received and answered two questions, in writing, during deliberations, in another closed court proceeding. But the transcript, clerk's papers, and docket did not reveal any such proceeding, open or closed. Recent controlling precedent reaffirmed a long-standing rule that the appellant bore the burden of providing a record showing that the supposedly unconstitutional event occurred. The Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed that recent controlling precedent. View "Washington v. Koss" on Justia Law

In this class action case, a jury found that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in its contracts with individual providers who live with the DSHS clients for whom they provide care. The jury found that the providers incurred over $57 million in damages, and the judge awarded an additional $38 million in interest. The DSHS clients who lived with their providers also filed a class action suit, but the judge did not allow them to recover any damages. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court upheld the jury's verdict for the providers, the judge's decision to disallow the clients from recovering damages, and the dismissal of the providers' wage claims, because all complied with Washington law. However, the Court reversed the judge's award of prejudgment interest because the damages could not be determined with certainty. View "Rekhter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs." on Justia Law

Richard Sweat received an exceptional sentence pursuant to RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h)(i) as part of a domestic violence conviction. He believed the trial court erred and argued that the catchall definition of "victim" in RCW 9.94A.030 must be used in interpreting RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h)(i), precluding the application of the aggravating factor when the pattern of abuse was not perpetrated against the victim or victims of the currently charged offense. The Supreme Court disagreed with that reasoning and affirmed. View "Washington v. Sweat" on Justia Law

About 25 years ago, petitioners Russell McNeil and Herbert Rice Jr. were tried as adults and convicted of aggravated first degree murder for crimes committed while the petitioners were both a little over 17 years old. They were each given the mandatory minimum sentence for that crime-life in prison without the possibility of early release. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. Ct. (2012)). Relying on "Miller," petitioners sought relief from their sentences on collateral review through personal restraint petitions (PRPs). While the PRPs were pending before the Washington Supreme Court, the legislature passed and the governor signed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5064, "the Miller fix." The State filed a motion to dismiss the PRPs, arguing the Miller fix made it impossible for petitioners to meet their threshold burden of showing they had suffered actual and substantial prejudice based on a constitutional error. The Washington Court denied the State's motion and deny the PRPs. View "In Re Pers. Restraint of McNeil" on Justia Law

This case centered on the interpretation of a state tax deduction statute. Former RCW 82.04.4292 (1980) provided that in computing their business and occupation (B&O) tax, banks and financial institutions could deduct from their income "amounts derived from interest received on investments or loans primarily secured by first mortgages or trust deeds on nontransient residential properties." Between 2004 and 2007, petitioner Cashmere Valley Bank invested in mortgage-backed securities known as real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). Cashmere claimed that interest earned on these investments was deductible under RCW 82.04.4292. Upon further review, the Supreme Court concluded Cashmere could not claim the deduction because its investments in REMICs and CMOs were not "primarily secured" by first mortgages or trust deeds. The ultimate source of cash flow was mortgage payments. However, Cashmere's investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default. Thus, Cashmere's investments were not "primarily secured" by mortgages or trust deeds. View "Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Respondent Jeramie Owens and a friend visited a car dealership in Mount Vernon after seeing a 1967 Volkswagen (VW) Beetle with a high performance engine, roof rack and surfboard on top. They took the car on a test ride but left without purchasing the car or leaving their names. The next day, a salesman opened the dealership and discovered that the same 1967 VW Beetle that respondent test drove the day before had been stolen, and one of the dealer's keys was missing. The next business day, respondent registered a 1971 VW Beetle, the registration for which had expired in 1993. In response to a listing on Craig's List, Craig Sauvageau purchased the 1971 Beetle from respondent. Claiming that he had lost the title respondent provided Sauvageau an affidavit in lieu of title. Savageau took the car to his mechanic to have it inspected, and the mechanic discovered that the VIN registered by respondent a few days prior appeared to be brand new with reinstalled rivets. Savageau called police to report the car as potentially stolen. Police discovered the confidential VIN matched that of the stolen 1967 VW from the dealership. Respondent would later be charged with first degree taking a motor vehicle without permission, first degree trafficking in stolen property, possession of a stolen vehicle and bail jumping. A jury convicted respondent on all charges but taking a motor vehicle without permission. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review involved whether whether RCW 9A.82.050(1) described alternative means of committing first degree trafficking in stolen property, and if so, whether substantial evidence supported each of the alternative means in this case. The Court of Appeals held that RCW 9A.82.050 described eight alternative means of committing the crime, and because there was insufficient evidence to support at least one of those eight means, the court reversed respondent's conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the conviction, and held that RCW 9A.82.050 described only two alternative means, and in this case, each was supported by sufficient evidence.View "Washington v. Owens" on Justia Law

Petitioner Pamela Deskins challenged the sentence she received after a jury found her guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the cruelty to animals statute. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited her from owning or living with animals as a condition of probation; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to forfeit any remaining animals to the Stevens County Sheriffs Office after giving her seven days to find them new homes; and (3) the trial court violated her due process rights by proceeding to sentencing 22 minutes after the verdict and imposing restitution to reimburse the county for animal care. The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture challenge was moot, and affirmed the Court of Appeals on all other issues.View "Washington v. Deskins" on Justia Law

In this case, Gary Walston was exposed to asbestos while working at The Boeing Company and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Court of Appeals held that pursuant to the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), Boeing was immune from suit because Walston had not raised a material question of fact as to whether Boeing had actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. The Supreme Court agreed after its review of the matter: Walston has not made such a showing, and therefore, he was limited to the recovery provided by the IIA' s workers' compensation system. View "Walston v. Boeing Co." on Justia Law

Kathryn Scrivener sued Clark College, claiming that age was the reason it did not hire her for a tenure track teaching position. She was 55 years old at the time, squarely within the 40- to 70-year-old age range protected by the Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The candidates ultimately picked for the positions were both under the age of 40. The trial court granted summary judgment in Clark College's favor, finding that Scrivener failed to prove that the college's stated reason for its decision was a pretext. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court took the opportunity of this case to clarify the standard must meet to overcome summary judgment: Employees may satisfy the pretext prong of the "McDonnell Douglas" framework by offering sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either: (1) that the employer's articulated reason for its action is pretextual; or (2) that, although the employer's stated reason is legitimate, discrimination nevertheless was a substantial factor motivating the employer. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment. Scrivener created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether age was a substantial factor motivating Clark College's decision to hire younger candidates. View "Scrivener v. Clark College" on Justia Law