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

The case involved Donald Smith, who was convicted in juvenile court for possessing chako sticks after police stopped and searched him based on a tip that he might be an escaped juvenile with an arrest warrant. The court decided to reverse the conviction, holding that the search was invalid. The reasoning was that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion particularized to Smith that he was armed and dangerous for a Terry frisk, relying instead on general practices in a high-crime area, and they also lacked probable cause for arrest because the informants' reliability and basis of knowledge were not established under the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Walter and Linda Jackson, who were convicted of marijuana possession after a search of their home based on a warrant derived from informant tips linking them to a suspected drug dealer under federal surveillance. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the state constitution (Const. art. 1, § 7) requires search warrant affidavits to establish both the informant's credibility and the basis of their knowledge, following the Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged test rather than the federal totality-of-circumstances approach. The court determined that the affidavits, which incorporated details from related federal documents and some independent corroboration of the informants' information, satisfied these requirements and supported probable cause. The convictions were therefore upheld.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the property tax valuation of a warehouse constructed by Duwamish Warehouse Company on land leased from the Port of Seattle, where the building would revert to the Port at the end of the 26-year lease without additional payment. The King County Assessor had valued the improvement at full market value under RCW Title 84 without accounting for the Port's reversionary interest, and the trial court upheld that assessment. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the publicly owned reversionary interest must be considered when determining the true and fair market value of the private lessee's taxable interest in the permanent improvement. The court's reasoning centered on statutory requirements for valuation of leasehold interests and improvements on tax-exempt public land, drawing from prior precedents on uniform ad valorem taxation and the treatment of encumbrances or competing interests in the property.

taxesproperty

The case involved Gordon James Reed's conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, where he admitted the act but claimed he lacked premeditated intent due to severe intoxication and borderline personality disorders. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments by making emotional appeals to local prejudice, expressing personal beliefs, and disparaging the defense counsel and expert witnesses as outsiders from the city. The court reasoned that these comments directly undermined the defendant's diminished capacity defense, that the evidence of intent was not overwhelming, and that there was a substantial likelihood the improper remarks affected the jury's decision, violating the defendant's right to a fair trial. The decision emphasized the prosecutor's duty to act impartially rather than as a partisan advocate.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Mitchell Edward Rupe's convictions for two counts of aggravated first degree murder and two counts of first degree robbery after he shot and killed two bank tellers during a bank robbery in 1981. The Washington Supreme Court directly reviewed his death sentence and addressed numerous issues concerning the guilt phase, including venue, admission of statements and evidence, due process claims, double jeopardy, and jury procedures, as well as challenges to the sentencing phase and the constitutionality of the state's capital punishment statute under RCW 10.95. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial errors during the guilt phase and rejecting challenges to the death penalty law. It remanded for a new sentencing proceeding after concluding that admission of evidence regarding the defendant's gun collection during the sentencing phase denied him due process, while upholding the jury instructions and other aspects of the sentencing review.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Davis, the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether, in a first-degree robbery prosecution based on accomplice liability, the State must prove that the accomplice knew the principal was armed with a deadly weapon. The defendant was convicted after a jury found him guilty as an accomplice who stood lookout during an armed pharmacy robbery, though it answered the deadly weapon special interrogatory in the negative; the trial court granted a new trial on grounds of inconsistent verdicts, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that under RCW 9A.08.020 the accomplice liability statute requires only knowledge that one's conduct will promote or facilitate "the crime," without needing proof of awareness of every element such as the principal's possession of a weapon. The majority reasoned that first-degree robbery is the crime charged and that the statutes do not impose a separate specific-knowledge requirement on accomplices regarding the deadly-weapon element.

criminal law

The case involved two teachers employed by a Washington school district shortly before October 1, 1977, who sought benefits under the pre-1977 Teachers' Retirement System Plan 1 rather than the less favorable Plan 2 created by 1977 amendments. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the trial court's ruling that the teachers were entitled to Plan 1 benefits. The court reasoned that the plain language of RCW 41.32.755 and RCW 41.32.750 tied plan eligibility to the date of initial employment, not to the establishment of membership after 90 days of service. Although the Department argued for applying the 90-day membership requirement to determine eligibility for Plan 1, the majority held that the specific statutory provisions controlled over general definitions.

labor & employment

Ilene Price sought to reopen her workers' compensation claim for aggravation of psychiatric disabilities stemming from a 1969 workplace injury. The Department of Labor and Industries denied the application, and after the Board and trial court upheld the denial based on jury instructions requiring objective findings for psychological injuries, the case reached the Washington Supreme Court. The court decided that the objective-subjective distinction is inappropriate for compensating psychological injuries under the workers' compensation act, as such conditions are inherently subjective and medical opinions rely on patient reports. It reversed the lower courts because the jury instruction prevented Price from presenting her theory of the case and remanded for a new trial. The reasoning centered on the evolution of evidence rules allowing reliance on subjective symptoms in psychiatric evaluations.

labor & employment

This case concerned whether the State could retry defendant Isaac Pam on habitual criminal charges based on prior convictions after a trial court dismissed the supplemental information. The trial court had dismissed two of the three counts because the State could not prove the constitutionality of Pam's earlier guilty pleas, citing issues with attorney-client privilege that prevented testimony from prior counsel, and then dismissed the entire information. The Court of Appeals had allowed a retrial, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court held that the State waived any appeal by failing to assign error to or argue against the underlying dismissal of the full information, as required by precedent in State v. Fortun and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It also applied the doctrine of invited error, noting that the prosecutor had asked the trial court to sustain the privilege objections to create an appealable issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Terri Steinbach, a 14-year-old minor, who was convicted of second degree burglary after entering her mother's home through a window with companions and removing several items, following an alternative residential placement order under RCW 13.32A that directed her to reside in a foster home. The trial court found she entered with intent to commit a crime and lacked privilege to enter, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient because an alternative residential placement order does not automatically revoke a child's privilege to enter the parental home unless it specifically provides for that, and the mother had not absolutely prohibited entry.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved a neighborhood group, Save a Neighborhood Environment (SANE), challenging the City of Seattle's approval of a contract rezone to allow construction of an 89-unit apartment complex for low-income elderly residents on land near St. Joseph's Church. SANE brought two actions, claiming that the Department of Construction and Land Use improperly excused a new negative threshold determination under SEPA regulations because the second proposal differed from an earlier one, and that the rezone constituted illegal spot zoning. The court rejected both claims and affirmed the trial courts' decisions upholding the city's actions. It reasoned that the proposals were substantially the same despite minor differences in size and features and some changes in the surrounding area, so no new threshold determination was required, and that the rezone was not spot zoning because it aligned with the comprehensive plan's allowance for institutional uses, promoted public welfare by providing needed housing without significant adverse impacts, and was not motivated by private gain.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case concerned whether Washington's automotive repair act (RCW 46.71), which requires written cost estimates for repairs exceeding $50, applied to a commercial repair shop's work on logging trucks. The shop performed repairs without providing estimates, billed nearly $10,000, and sued for the balance after partial payment; the customer defended by citing the act's requirements. The trial court ruled for the shop on waiver grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis that the act covered only passenger vehicles and ordinary consumers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's plain language applies to repairs of any motor vehicles, including commercial logging trucks, and that its consumer-protection purpose follows the customer into any repair shop regardless of the shop's primary business.

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether Washington's statutes of repose for claims arising from construction of improvements to real property (RCW 4.16.300 and RCW 4.16.310) barred a product liability suit brought by a worker injured in 1979 by a conveyor belt system installed in a food processing plant in 1965. The plaintiff sued the system's designer and installer under strict liability for a defective product, while the defendant argued the action was time-barred because the system qualified as an improvement to real property. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the defendant, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutes did not apply. The court reasoned that the statutes target activities related to constructing or designing the building or structure itself, not manufacturing equipment or accoutrements within it, which remain subject to ordinary product liability limitations periods; it applied the ejusdem generis canon and distinguished cases involving integral building systems.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a citizens association seeking judicial review of King County's approval of a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision, after the county council granted approval following recommendations from a hearing examiner. The trial court dismissed the writ of review on grounds that the association failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the examiner's recommendation to the council and failed to timely join indispensable parties (the property owners). The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the dismissal, reasoning that the council's action was the final quasi-legislative decision subject to a 30-day review period under RCW 58.17.180, but parties must first follow the county code's appeal procedures from the examiner, and late joinder of parties did not relate back due to inexcusable neglect. The core issues centered on procedural prerequisites for challenging local land-use decisions.

propertyenvironmentprocedure