Charles T. Donworth

This case was a will contest in which relatives of the deceased, Miss M. Josephine Reilly, challenged a 1964 will that left her entire estate to the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence, a charitable organization operating a nursing home. The trial court ruled the will invalid after a four-week trial, finding that Miss Reilly lacked testamentary capacity due to her declining physical and mental condition from illness and that she was subject to undue influence. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reviewed the extensive record and affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence regarding the testatrix's state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the will's execution.

family lawproperty

This case concerned a dispute between members/lessees of Washington Land Yacht Harbor, Inc., a nonprofit corporation formed by Airstream trailer owners from the Northwest Unit of the Wally Byam Caravan Club, and the corporation itself over membership rights, control of the entity, and the validity of its governing documents. Plaintiffs brought a quo warranto action and sought declaratory relief regarding the status of lessees and related corporate questions after the corporation attempted to sell its assets. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court had erred in determining which bylaws controlled the corporation's membership qualifications and operations.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned the pension benefits due to Emile Vallet, a retired Seattle police inspector with nearly 43 years of service, after the city increased salaries for that rank following his 1965 retirement. Vallet sought pension payments equal to half the current salary attached to the inspector position under the 1961 pension law, and the trial court ruled in his favor, awarding increases and declaring an ongoing right to such adjustments. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that Vallet was required to retire under the 1961 act rather than selectively combining its escalator provisions with more favorable terms from the earlier 1915 law. The court reasoned that the 1961 statute's limit of pension amounts to half the salary of a captain (a lower rank) was a reasonable offset for the benefit of future salary-based increases, and allowing piecemeal selection of provisions would undermine pension administration. The matter was remanded for any necessary recalculation based on captain salaries.

labor & employment

In State v. Garman, the defendant was charged with attempted grand larceny for attempting to take property valued over $75 from a construction site; after pleading not guilty and demanding a speedy trial, he was convicted of the lesser offense of attempted petit larceny following a September 1968 jury trial, and the state then filed a supplemental information alleging habitual criminal status based on prior convictions. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of the 60-day speedy trial statute (RCW 10.46.010), citing the unavailability of a jury term in July and August and the scheduling of earlier cases, and later found the defendant to be an habitual criminal, resulting in a 10-to-15-year sentence. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the habitual criminal judgment, holding that the conviction for attempted petit larceny did not qualify under RCW 9.92.090 because the underlying statute (RCW 9.54.010) does not require proof of fraud or an attempt to defraud and the habitual criminal statute does not expressly encompass attempts to commit petit larceny, remanding for resentencing solely on the attempted petit larceny conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Gordon Walker, Jr., who was charged by the City of Mercer Island with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, in violation of a city ordinance that adopted state statutes by reference, including mandatory minimum penalties for a second conviction within five years. Walker was convicted in district court, appealed for a de novo jury trial in superior court, and was found guilty based on evidence from a traffic stop and sobriety tests; the court then imposed a sentence including at least 30 days in jail, which could not be suspended due to the repeat-offense provision. On appeal, Walker challenged the jury instruction explaining the de novo nature of the trial and the reference to the prior justice court conviction, as well as other issues including the admission of prior convictions for credibility after he testified and the accuracy of the ordinance citation in the complaint. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the instruction was not prejudicial, that prior convictions were properly usable for impeachment, and that any defect in pleading the ordinance was waived by lack of objection at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hill, appellant Henry Hill was charged with first-degree assault for slashing James Ellis's throat with a knife during an argument at a cabin; he was convicted of second-degree assault after a jury found he was armed with a deadly weapon and received a maximum 10-year sentence. Hill appealed, arguing that his statements to police should have been excluded because he did not validly waive his Miranda rights, that the trial court gave improper jury instructions on self-defense and expert testimony, and that other evidentiary rulings were erroneous. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Hill had been properly advised of his rights, knowingly waived them by agreeing to answer questions, and that the jury instructions adequately covered self-defense and other issues under settled state law. The court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure