Faith Ireland

The consolidated cases involved challenges to RCW 42.17.760, a Washington statute that prohibits labor unions from using agency shop fees paid by nonmember public employees for political or ideological purposes without obtaining the nonmembers' affirmative authorization. The Public Disclosure Commission and individual nonmembers alleged that the Washington Education Association violated the statute by transferring nonobjecting nonmembers' fees to its general fund and using them for such expenditures after providing Hudson notices and rebates only to those who objected. The trial court imposed penalties, but the Court of Appeals held the statute unconstitutional; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the statute's opt-in requirement burdens the union's speech and associational rights in a manner not permitted under First Amendment precedents that allow unions to use fees from nonobjectors while providing an opt-out mechanism. The court also affirmed dismissal of the private right of action claims because they depended on the invalid statute.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case involved Evelyne Grundy suing Thurston County and her neighbors, the Bracks, claiming that the neighbors' raising of their seawall created a private nuisance by diverting seawater onto her property, causing flooding and damage. The trial court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the common enemy doctrine to allow property owners to protect against water intrusion. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the common enemy doctrine does not apply to seawater and thus does not bar the private nuisance claim.

propertyenvironmenttorts & liability

In State v. Woods, the defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree child molestation involving his daughters. The trial court ruled that the children were competent to testify and admitted their out-of-court statements to their foster mother and a child interview specialist under the child hearsay statute. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in these determinations. The court explained that competency findings rest within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse, which was not shown here. Because the children were found competent to testify, the court did not address issues of hearsay corroboration.

criminal lawfamily law

The case concerned whether a 911 call reporting a domestic assault could be admitted at trial without the caller's testimony after Crawford v. Washington, and whether jury instructions properly handled the element elevating a no-contact order violation to a felony. The Washington Supreme Court held that emergency 911 calls must be assessed case-by-case to determine if statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. It ruled that any error in admitting the call was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of other evidence of the defendant's guilt. The court also concluded that placing the assault element in a special verdict form rather than the main "to convict" instruction was constitutionally permissible under the statutory framework establishing base crimes and enhanced penalties. The conviction for felony violation of a domestic no-contact order was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Mills, the defendant was charged with felony harassment based on a threatening phone message left for the victim, and the trial court used a bifurcated jury instruction that placed the "threat to kill" element on a special verdict form rather than in the main "to convict" instruction. The Washington Supreme Court held that such bifurcation is constitutionally permissible when the legislature has established a base crime with elevated penalties for an additional fact and that fact is found beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury. However, the court determined that the instructions given in this case did not clearly require the jury to find that the victim was placed in reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried out. Accordingly, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Margaret Diamond Christopher for falsifying documents in a civil arbitration matter, including backdating an offer of judgment, forging her secretary's signature on a declaration of mailing, creating a false billing entry, and submitting false statements to the arbitrator and court to conceal a potential error in her handling of the case. The Washington Supreme Court imposed an 18-month suspension followed by three years of probation, rejecting both the Bar Association's request for disbarment and Christopher's request for a reprimand. The court determined that the presumptive sanction under the applicable standards was disbarment due to intentional dishonesty and multiple offenses but found that mitigating factors such as inexperience, personal problems, and rehabilitation, along with a proportionality review of similar cases, justified a lesser sanction. The decision balanced aggravating factors like dishonest motive against these mitigators and adopted the Disciplinary Board's recommendation without specific grounds to depart from it.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Kitsap County's sign ordinance, which prohibits offsite signs without a permit, could constitutionally be applied to Mattress Outlet's use of workers wearing oversized raincoats displaying the company's name, address, and sale information while standing on public sidewalks. The Washington Supreme Court held that the ordinance, as applied to these raincoats, violated the First Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. The court applied the Central Hudson test, finding that while the county had substantial interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, the ordinance was not narrowly tailored because it broadly prohibited the raincoat advertisements without sufficient justification or narrower alternatives. The court reversed the superior court's ruling and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the citations issued to Mattress Outlet.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Washington homeowners who sued a feed company after its negligent storage of wet hay caused a fire that destroyed a barn on their property, seeking damages for the loss. The trial court instructed the jury to award the lesser of the barn's added value to the property or its replacement cost, resulting in a $300,000 verdict, and imposed sanctions under CR 37(c) for the defendant's refusal to admit negligence during discovery. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on the damages instruction, holding it accurately reflected precedent allowing recovery of the lesser of replacement cost or diminution in value without prejudicing the defendant. On sanctions, the court adopted the dissent's view that the trial court abused its discretion because the requests for admission improperly sought legal conclusions, and it vacated the sanctions order.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

In Diehl v. Western Wash. Growth Management Hearings Board, petitioner John Diehl sought judicial review of a Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decision regarding a county comprehensive plan, filing his petition under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and chapters 34.05 and 36.70A RCW. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Diehl failed to comply with Civil Rule 4 requirements for service of process, including proper proof of service and not serving process himself, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the APA exclusively governs the manner and timing of service for petitions for judicial review of agency decisions, making CR 4 inapplicable where inconsistent, and that Diehl's service by mail or in person to the listed parties within 30 days, along with actual notice to respondents including the attorney general, satisfied RCW 34.05.542. The court remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the merits, noting that failure to serve the county auditor was not required under the APA.

environmentprocedure

In Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., an employee who had worked for a printing company since 1997 under an at-will contract challenged the enforceability of a noncompete agreement he signed in 2002 at the employer's request. The new agreement imposed a three-year restriction on working for competitors within 75 miles of the employer's Tacoma location, but the employee received no additional compensation, benefits, or promises in return, and the employer assumed no new obligations. After the employer later altered the commission structure, the employee explored other jobs and was terminated when the employer learned of his plans; the employer then sought to enforce the noncompete. The Washington Supreme Court held that a noncompete agreement entered after employment begins requires independent consideration to be valid, and because none existed here, the 2002 agreement was unenforceable.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a personal restraint petition filed by Cecil Emile Davis challenging his conviction and death sentence for the premeditated first-degree murder of an elderly woman, with aggravating circumstances of rape, robbery, and burglary. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed multiple claims, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the petitioner being visibly shackled during proceedings. The court affirmed the guilt-phase conviction, reasoning that overwhelming evidence of guilt meant the petitioner could not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel's deficient performance. However, it granted relief on the penalty phase and remanded for a new sentencing trial, finding that prejudice from shackling could not necessarily be overcome by evidence in the special sentencing proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether police must return to a magistrate to reassess probable cause for a search warrant when new information received before execution could undermine the original finding. The Washington Supreme Court held that officers must seek reevaluation if the new information, if believed, negates probable cause, but ruled that the defendant's statement he was temporarily out of methamphetamine did not negate probable cause given evidence of ongoing drug sales from prior controlled buys. The court therefore affirmed the validity of the warrant and the resulting convictions for possession of marijuana and ecstasy with intent to deliver.

criminal law

In Harris v. Drake, a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a rear-end car collision, the plaintiff moved to bar the defense from calling a physician who had conducted an independent medical exam under the plaintiff's PIP auto insurance policy or using the doctor's reports, asserting work product protection on behalf of the insurer. The Washington Supreme Court held that reports from such exams may qualify for the qualified immunity of the work product doctrine. The court reasoned that the exam was prepared in anticipation of potential litigation between the insured and insurer, so Civil Rule 26(b)(4) requires a showing of substantial need and undue hardship before discovery, and the plaintiff could assert the protection.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Department of Corrections could expunge and rehear a prison disciplinary infraction against inmate David Higgins after he filed a personal restraint petition challenging the original hearing and sanctions. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the DOC retained jurisdiction to conduct the rehearing while the petition was pending in the appellate courts and that the rehearing did not violate double jeopardy principles. The court reasoned that prison disciplinary proceedings are administrative in nature rather than criminal prosecutions, so double jeopardy protections do not apply, and that the DOC's authority to correct its own errors supports rehearing authority. It therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition and permission for rehearing. The court granted the petitioner's motion to supplement the record but rejected any claim that the rehearing was unauthorized.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lorenz, the Washington Supreme Court reviewed a conviction for first-degree child molestation arising from an investigation into child pornography and exploitation involving the defendant's five-year-old daughter. The issues were whether the trial court erred by omitting a separate finding of sexual gratification from the 'to convict' jury instruction and whether the defendant's written statement should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings. The court held that sexual gratification is a definitional component of the essential element 'sexual contact' and does not require separate inclusion in the 'to convict' instruction. It further held that the defendant was not in custody when she gave the statement, as officers explicitly informed her she was free to leave and she acknowledged this in writing, so no Miranda warnings were required. The court affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Chayce Hanson’s conviction for second-degree felony murder based on assault as the predicate crime, stemming from the death of a young child. Following its earlier decision in In re Andress that assault cannot serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether that ruling applies to Hanson’s case, which was on appeal and thus not final. The court held that the Andress decision applies prospectively to all cases not yet final under the applicable rules, including those on direct appeal, and therefore vacated Hanson’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal law

This case consolidated multiple wrongful death actions in which parents of deceased adult children sought to recover damages for loss of consortium under RCW 4.24.010 even though they were not financially dependent on their children. The Washington Supreme Court held that the statute requires such financial dependence as a condition for recovery. The court reasoned from the plain language of RCW 4.24.010, the structure of related wrongful death and survival statutes in chapter 4.20 RCW that impose a two-tier beneficiary system, and the limited scope of 1998 amendments that broadened the definition of support but applied only to minor children.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved Roy Lee Isadore, who pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and third-degree assault without being informed that his sentence required one year of mandatory community placement, as the plea form and prosecutor had indicated it did not apply. After the Department of Corrections later notified authorities and the trial court amended the sentence to add community placement, Isadore filed a personal restraint petition seeking to enforce the original plea agreement. The Washington Supreme Court held that a defendant misinformed of a direct consequence of a guilty plea need not show that the misinformation materially affected the decision to plead guilty in order to obtain relief. The court reasoned that due process requires a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea, and that misinformation about direct sentencing consequences like mandatory community placement renders the plea invalid under precedents such as State v. Ross and State v. Walsh. It granted the petition and ordered specific performance by striking the amended community placement term.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Carter, off-duty criminal investigators attending a firearms training class examined and seized a modified AR-15 rifle that the defendant, the class instructor, had brought and allowed students to handle, leading to charges for illegal possession of an automatic weapon. The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding a warrantless search and seizure violated privacy rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the rifle because he placed it in open view and invited handling by others. The court further concluded that exigent circumstances justified the seizure without a warrant due to the defendant's agitated behavior and potential safety risks.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

In State v. Thomas, a Pierce County jury convicted Covell Paul Thomas of aggravated first degree murder, residential burglary, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm after he planned and carried out the robbery and shooting of his employer, Richard Geist, on March 27, 1998. The trial court imposed a death sentence based on the jury's finding that there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that challenged evidentiary rulings, including the admission of an excited utterance, did not violate the confrontation clause or state evidence rules. However, the court reversed the death sentence, concluding that an erroneous jury instruction on the aggravating circumstances prevented the jury from properly considering whether the murder was committed in the course of a burglary or robbery, and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding or resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure