Hugh J. Rosellini

This case involved indigent individuals initially detained in King County under Washington's mental health statutes for 72-hour evaluations and then 14-day involuntary treatment, after which petitions for 90-day extensions were filed in Pierce County Superior Court where they were detained at Western State Hospital. The appellants challenged the Pierce County court's jurisdiction, sought venue and jury selection in their county of residence, questioned the constitutionality of a court rule allowing proceedings in the detention county, and requested appointment of an independent social worker to pursue less restrictive alternatives. The court held that the Pierce County Superior Court had jurisdiction because the 14-day proceeding had concluded and the new 90-day petition sought different relief, that venue rules were procedural rather than jurisdictional, that the rule authorizing proceedings where the person is detained was valid, and that denial of a social worker appointment did not violate effective assistance of counsel since the statute gave the court discretion and no abuse was shown. The orders for 90-day treatment were affirmed.

procedurecivil rightshealthcare

This case concerns the enforceability of agreements by Washington municipalities and public utility districts to finance and build nuclear power plants WNP 4 and 5 after those plants were abandoned. Following its prior decision that the entities lacked statutory authority to enter the contracts, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment releasing all 88 participants from liability to the bondholders' trustee. The court held there was no legislative ratification, the contracts were unenforceable due to mutual mistake and commercial frustration, equitable estoppel and UCC provisions did not apply, and no constitutional rights of the bondholders were violated.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Williams, petitioner John L. Williams was convicted of second degree burglary and first degree theft based on jewelry and other evidence found during a search of his vehicle after police detained him near a residence with a sounding burglar alarm. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed. The court held that while the initial investigative stop was justified by reasonable suspicion, it exceeded the scope and purpose permitted under Const. art. 1, § 7 when officers handcuffed and detained the petitioner without probable cause, effectively converting it into an arrest. As a result, the subsequent vehicle search could not be justified under exceptions to the warrant requirement such as search incident to arrest or routine inventory, so the evidence should have been suppressed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved petitioner Charles Jackson's appeal of his convictions for second degree rape of a 12-year-old and indecent liberties with a 14-year-old, both arising from separate incidents in which he grabbed girls walking home from school. Jackson challenged the trial court's admission of evidence about a 1974 assault on another 13-year-old under ER 404(b), arguing it was not sufficiently similar and that the court failed to balance its probative value against prejudice or specify its purpose on the record. The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by not making an on-the-record determination of relevance for a permitted purpose like identity, motive, or absence of mistake and by not weighing prejudice, but concluded the error was harmless because other evidence supported the verdicts and the prior incident did not materially affect the outcome. The court therefore affirmed both convictions. A partial dissent argued the error was prejudicial as to the rape charge under precedents like State v. Saltarelli.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned petitioner Leslie Mathe's convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. Mathe challenged the admission of evidence and identifications stemming from a warrantless police entry and search of his rented bedroom, which was authorized by consent from his landlord. The court determined that the landlord lacked common authority over the bedroom, which was rented for the exclusive use of Mathe and his girlfriend, rendering the consent invalid under the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the in-court identifications by the robbery victims and other witnesses were based on their independent prior observations of the defendant and were not tainted by the illegal search. The convictions were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved claims for underinsured motorist benefits by the Sowas after their son was injured in a motorcycle accident; the son had purchased the motorcycle days earlier but the title had not been transferred and no insurance had been obtained for it. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of coverage under both the original owner's policy issued by National Indemnity Company and the Sowas' own automobile policy with Allstate Insurance Company. For the National Indemnity policy, coverage was unavailable because the motorcycle was no longer owned by the named insured at the time of the accident, as required by the policy's definition of a covered auto. For the Allstate policy, the court held that Washington's underinsured motorist statute does not require coverage for owned but uninsured motorcycles and that the policy contained a valid endorsement excluding such coverage.

business & regulatory