Bobbe Jean Bridge

In State v. Ross, three defendants challenged their felony sentences on appeal, contending that the State had not proven their prior out-of-state or federal convictions were comparable to Washington crimes and therefore should not count toward their offender scores under the Sentencing Reform Act. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, ruling that the defendants waived any such challenge because their counsel had affirmatively acknowledged at sentencing that the convictions were properly included in their criminal history. The court distinguished its earlier decision in In re Goodwin, where no acknowledgment occurred, and found no factual or legal error supporting claims of miscalculated scores. It also rejected arguments for retroactive application of statutory changes in one defendant's case under the savings clause of RCW 10.01.040.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved three Washington state inmates serving sentences for crimes including murder and child molestation who filed personal restraint petitions after being temporarily transferred in 1999 to a private prison facility in Colorado due to overcrowding in state facilities. Petitioners argued that the Department of Corrections lacked statutory authority to make the transfers and that due process required a pretransfer hearing, claiming the state had surrendered jurisdiction and seeking their release. The Washington Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that the DOC possessed statutory authority to contract for out-of-state placements as an interim measure and that the transfers did not violate due process. The court reasoned that relevant statutes and administrative rules permitted such temporary housing arrangements and that U.S. Supreme Court precedent established no additional liberty interest was implicated by interstate prison transfers.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Schwab, the defendant was convicted of first degree manslaughter and second degree felony murder for a single homicide; the Court of Appeals initially vacated the manslaughter conviction on double jeopardy grounds while affirming the murder conviction. After the Washington Supreme Court's Andress decision invalidated felony murder convictions predicated on assault, Schwab's murder conviction was also vacated via personal restraint petition. On remand, the superior court reinstated the manslaughter conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that RAP 2.5(c)(2) authorized review of the previously vacated manslaughter conviction and that the appellate court properly exercised discretion to reinstate it once double jeopardy concerns were eliminated by vacating the murder conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Andre Becklin, who was charged with stalking his ex-girlfriend by directing friends to follow her, report on her activities, and harass her in violation of a protection order. At trial, the jury asked whether stalking could occur through third parties, and the trial court answered yes after consulting counsel, leading to Becklin's conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the response improper and an incorrect statement of law due to lack of an accomplice liability instruction. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court's answer accurately reflected that directing others to harass constitutes stalking and that further instruction was within the court's discretion since both parties had argued the issue in closing. The decision rested on the statutory definition of a course of conduct in the stalking statute and the principle that accountability for another's actions can arise directly under the law defining the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved small waste collection companies, including Kendall Trucking, challenging the City of Seattle's contracts and ordinances that granted Rabanco and Waste Management exclusive rights to collect construction, demolition, and land clearing waste (CDL) within the city. The Washington Supreme Court held that the City's restrictions did not impermissibly infringe on the petitioners' rights and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that state law allows a city's direct contracts for solid waste collection to end Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission jurisdiction, that the City's definition of CDL as "City's Waste" was within its municipal authority, and that the resulting monopoly had a rational basis tied to environmental and regulatory goals without violating article I, section 12 privileges and immunities protections.

business & regulatoryenvironment

In State v. Codiga, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree child molestation in exchange for dismissal of two other counts, with the parties agreeing on an offender score of seven based on two prior felonies. After the presentence investigation revealed additional misdemeanor convictions that prevented one felony from washing out, the offender score rose to eight and increased the standard sentencing range; Codiga then sought to withdraw his plea on grounds of mutual mistake and inadequate judicial confirmation of his understanding. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the plea agreement's explicit risk-allocation clause bound Codiga to the consequences of newly discovered criminal history and that the record showed he understood the charges, the factual basis, and the plea consequences. The decision rested on the distinction between factual discovery of additional history (which the defendant had assumed) and legal error, together with evidence that Codiga knew of the issue before sentencing yet proceeded.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between American Safety Casualty Insurance Company, as surety for contractor Katspan, and the City of Olympia over a public works project to build a pipeline segment. Katspan and American Safety sought additional compensation but failed to follow the contract's required protest, claim, and lawsuit procedures, including filing within 180 days of project closeout, which the contract stated would waive such claims. The City had expressly reserved its rights to enforce the procedures in correspondence and later negotiated with American Safety after the deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, but the Court of Appeals reversed; the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the City's actions in negotiations were at most equivocal and did not amount to an implied waiver of its contractual defenses, as any waiver must be unequivocal.

business & regulatory

This case arose after a student with a severe peanut allergy died following a school field trip, leading to a wrongful death claim that the school district investigated, mediated, and settled. A newspaper then requested related records under Washington's Public Records Act, but the district withheld dozens of documents, asserting protections under attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The Washington Supreme Court held that the vast majority of the withheld records qualified as protected work product, primarily consisting of notes and memoranda from witness interviews conducted by the district's legal team, while a few others were shielded by privilege. The court also ruled that a government agency may initiate a court action under the Act to obtain a judicial determination on whether specific records are exempt from disclosure. The decision rested on the statutory exceptions to the Public Records Act and the nature of the documents created in anticipation of litigation.

procedurefree speech

This case concerned a constitutional challenge to Initiative 747, a 2001 voter-approved measure that sought to amend state law to cap annual increases in regular property tax levies by the state and local districts at one percent. The challengers argued that the initiative violated Article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution, which requires that any amendatory law set forth in full the existing statute being changed. The court agreed, holding the initiative invalid because its text inaccurately described the prior limit as two percent when the actual statutory cap in effect was six percent, thereby failing to properly disclose the scope of the amendment to voters. The court did not reach the separate claim that the initiative violated the subject-in-title requirement of Article II, section 19.

taxeselections

This case involved a disciplinary action against Washington attorney Fernando Perez-Pena, who was accused of assaulting client Cecelia Garcia during a dispute over an immigration matter fee and failing to return an unearned portion of that fee. The hearing officer found misconduct only on the assault count based on a prior conviction (later vacated) and recommended an admonition, but the Disciplinary Board found violations on both counts and recommended concurrent suspensions of three and six months plus restitution. The Supreme Court of Washington upheld findings of misconduct on both counts despite the vacated conviction, reasoning that the evidence supported the assault and the attorney's failure to pay the civil judgment for the fee, and imposed a 60-day suspension with reinstatement conditioned on satisfying the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the estates of Cung Van Ho and Thuy Thi Thanh Nguyen Ho, who lived in a committed intimate relationship for 14 years before both died in a car accident along with others. Thuy's estate sought an equitable division of assets titled in Cung's name under Washington's law of committed intimate relationships, while the guardian ad litem for a surviving minor child injured in the accident moved to intervene in the probate proceedings to pursue a tort claim against the couple's property. The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing intervention, that the law of committed intimate relationships can be applied to divide assets between the estates of both deceased partners, and that questions of joint tort liability were more appropriately resolved in a separate suit rather than in the probate action.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a challenge by landlords and tenants to a Pasco city ordinance requiring landlords to obtain biennial certifications that their rental units comply with health, safety, and building codes, which could be provided by city inspectors or approved private professionals. The petitioners argued that the ordinance violated privacy protections under the Washington Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The Washington Supreme Court held that the ordinance did not implicate state action because it permitted landlords to use private inspectors and did not authorize government entry into units without consent. The court further reasoned that the required inspections were ones landlords could already conduct under existing law and that the ordinance provided sufficient clarity in its standards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision upholding the ordinance.

business & regulatorycivil rightsproperty

Douglas Tobin pleaded guilty to charges stemming from an organization that illegally harvested large amounts of crab and geoduck from Puget Sound between 2000 and 2002, with the State and affected tribes as victims. The trial court ordered restitution including amounts for the stolen resources plus specific investigative and administrative costs such as forensic accounting, part-time assistance for records, and resurveying impacted geoduck tracts. Tobin argued on appeal that these additional costs were not sufficiently related to his crimes to be included in restitution. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the costs were caused by Tobin's criminal activity and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding them.

criminal lawpropertyenvironment

The case involved Kaela Atchison, who became personal representative of her father's estate after turning 18 and filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his former employer, Great Western Malting Co., alleging negligence caused his lymphoma and death in 2000. The suit was filed in 2006, more than three years after the death. The trial court dismissed the claim under CR 12(b)(6) as barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled during Kaela's minority because only a personal representative may bring a wrongful death action under RCW 4.20.010, the minor could not have been appointed as such, and the tolling statute does not extend the period in this situation absent legislative provision. The core reasoning focused on the plain language of the wrongful death, personal representative appointment, limitations, and tolling statutes, which do not permit tolling here.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law

Feature Realty and related parties sued attorneys Neal, Butler, and the Preston Gates law firm for legal malpractice arising from representation in a Spokane zoning dispute and settlement. After the California court granted motions to quash service and for a forum non conveniens stay but allowed time to refile in Washington, Feature filed in King County, then requested dismissal of the California action against Preston and Butler; Feature later voluntarily dismissed the King County case and refiled. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Washington's two-dismissal rule, CR 41(a)(4). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that Feature's California dismissal was unilateral and voluntary, triggering the rule when combined with the King County dismissal, and that Neal was in privity with Preston so the bar applied to both.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Kevin Ambers, who was civilly committed in 1998 as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Washington's chapter 71.09 RCW after prior rape convictions and who later sought an unconditional release trial based on an expert report indicating a 36% likelihood of reoffending over 15 years. The trial court denied the request, interpreting 2005 amendments to the Act as imposing a stricter 'safe to be at large' standard beyond the original 'more probably than not' recidivism criterion when detainees rely on their own experts. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the amendments did not alter the statutory definition of an SVP or raise the prima facie threshold for obtaining a full evidentiary hearing on release; Ambers' expert evidence sufficed to trigger a trial on whether he continued to meet commitment criteria. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of RCW 71.09.020 and .090, emphasizing that courts must apply the unchanged 'more probably than not' standard and avoid weighing evidence at the show-cause stage.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hacheney, Nicholas Hacheney was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder after evidence showed he suffocated his wife Dawn before setting a fire in their home to conceal the crime; the jury also found the aggravating factor that the murder occurred in the course of first-degree arson, which imposed a sentence of life without release. Hacheney challenged the aggravating factor on the grounds that Dawn's death preceded the arson, eliminating any causal link, and raised a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim regarding videotaped witness depositions. The Washington Supreme Court held that the aggravating factor requires the death to be a probable consequence of the felony, which was not met here since the murder was not caused by the arson, and it rejected the confrontation claim because the witnesses were unavailable. The court affirmed the murder conviction but reversed the aggravating factor and remanded for resentencing. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of 'in the course of' under RCW 10.95.020(11)(e) and established precedent requiring a causal connection between the felony and the death.

criminal law

This case involved attorney discipline proceedings against Bradley R. Marshall stemming from his representation of multiple longshoremen plaintiffs in a federal racial discrimination lawsuit. The hearing officer and Disciplinary Board found that Marshall had improperly shared fees with a nonlawyer consultant, concealed the arrangement by requesting a false invoice, overcharged clients for costs, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple representation despite conflicts, and filed an unauthorized appeal. Marshall challenged the findings and the disbarment recommendation, arguing insufficient notice and evidentiary errors. The Washington Supreme Court upheld most factual findings but determined that no technical fee splitting occurred, though Marshall acted dishonestly and intentionally in other respects; it concluded that the appropriate sanction was an 18-month suspension plus restitution of $44,473.75 rather than disbarment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jorden, the defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine after a deputy sheriff randomly reviewed a motel guest registry as part of a local crime-reduction program, discovered outstanding arrest warrants for Jorden, and then entered his room where cocaine was found in plain view. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and the Court of Appeals decision. The court held that the random, suspicionless check of the motel registry violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution because the registry information qualified as a protected private affair that could not be searched without authority of law, and it distinguished this from less sensitive records such as driver's licenses.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether the Washington Department of Corrections could deduct 20 percent of non-work-related deposits (such as family gifts) from the accounts of inmates serving life without parole to pay court-ordered legal financial obligations (LFOs). The inmates argued that RCW 72.09.480(7) lists specific mandatory deductions for such inmates and omits LFOs, so the deductions were unauthorized. The court held that RCW 72.11.020 independently grants the secretary discretionary authority to make LFO deductions from inmate accounts provided the balance does not fall below the indigency level, and RCW 72.11.030 gives LFOs priority over other deductions. The justices reasoned that the statutes must be harmonized where possible and that barring the deductions would conflict with the legislature’s clear intent that LFOs be paid.

criminal lawprocedure