Experienced legal counsel to cannabis businesses, entrepreneurs, and patients.
Seattle, Washington (206) 728-0200
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Washington Case Law Ipdates August 9 - 20, 2010
SUPREME COURT
Criminal Mistreatment: Child and Dependant are Not Mutually Exclusive Terms
State v. Mitchell, ___ Wn.2d ___ (Aug. 12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of criminal mistreatment for the abuse and neglect of a four year old boy.
Held: The State established beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the crime. The terms child and dependent are not mutually exclusive for purposes of establishing whether “people who assume responsibility to provide the basic necessities of life for a dependent person” can be found guilty of criminal mistreatment when the victim is a child.
Persistent Offender: Verdict Finding of Firearm Facially Valid in Determining whether the Defendant Was Armed with a Deadly Weapon
In re Cruze, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was sentenced to life in prison as a persistent offender. Several years after the one year time limit to appeal had passed, he filed a PRP and challenged the second strike conviction, a 1996 drug conviction with a special verdict finding that he was armed with a firearm at the time of the drug crime. In the PRP, he argued that the 1996 conviction was facially invalid and should not qualify as a “most serious offense.”
Held: A deadly weapon verdict is any verdict or finding made in compliance with the procedures of former RCW 9.94A.125 that determines that the defendant used an item that former RCW 9.94A.125 defined as a deadly weapon. Where state established that the defendant was armed with a firearm, and not specifically a deadly weapon, the conviction is facially valid and the one-year time bar applies.
Search/Seizure: Gant Still Applies; No Good Faith Exception for Police
State v Adams, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was arrested on a warrant and his vehicle was searched incident to arrest, yielding drugs. Here, the defendant was not in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, there was no officer safety concern and no need to secure evidence of the crime of arrest. The State argued good faith exception should apply.
Held: There is no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under the Washington Constitution.
Double Jeopardy: Violated when court explicitly holds vacated less conviction alive for reinstatement should the more serious conviction for the same criminal conduct fail on appeal.
State v. Turner, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: Two separate defendants were convicted of multiple crimes. Based on double jeopardy some lesser crimes were vacated at sentencing but conditionally. The trial courts issued order stating that if the greater convictions were overturned on appeal, the convictions of the vacated crimes could be reinstated.
Held: In some circumstances that a lesser conviction previously vacated may be revived following appellate reversal of the more serious conviction, but explicit conditional vacation of a lesser conviction violates double jeopardy. The court may not state orally, or include in the judgment and sentence, any reference to the vacated conviction, nor can the court make reference to the vacated conviction at sentencing.
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS
Sentencing/Crime Against Law Enforcement Officer: Sufficient evidence supports the aggravating circumstance that the defendant committed the crime against a law enforcement officer.
Search/Seizure: an unlawful seizure by police does not justify shooting at the police officer when only faced with loss of freedom. A person may only use reasonable and proportional force to resist injury from an officer.
State v Mann, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div. III) (No. 27317-2-III) (Aug.12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction. He ran from the scene, fleeing after the patrol officer instructed him to stop. Police followed his footprints and found him. Gunfire was exchanged and he was arrested. He was charged with and convicted of assault 1, and other weapons and drug charges, and the aggravator of committing the offense against a law enforcement officer. He received an exceptional sentence of 48 months above the standard range. The defendant challenged the seizure for the first time on appeal.
Held: There was sufficient evidence to show the defendant knew that the victim was a law enforcement officer. The defendant testified that he thought it was the police that found him and told him to surrender, but denied shooting intentionally. Forensic evidence contradicted the defendant’s version of an accidental shooting.
The seizure was unlawful, but that did not excuse the defendant’s conduct of shooting at the officer. A person can use reasonable and proportional force to resist injury from an officer during an arrest but not when faced only with loss of freedom.
71.09: evidence that a respondent may be eligible for the CPP program is not admissible in 71.09 proceeding unless the option would certainly exist upon unconditional release.
In Re Mulkins, ___ Wn.App. ___ (Div I)(No. 63222-1-I)(Aug. 9, 2010)
Facts: The respondent had two prior convictions for child molestation, one juvenile and one adult. Prior to his release from prison on the adult matter, the State filed a 71.09 petition. While serving his sentence, he received a letter from DSHS indicating he might be eligible for a voluntary program of supervision (CPP). He sought to introduce the letter at trial but the court denied it.
Held: A respondent in a 71.09 proceeding is not entitled to present evidence that he is eligible to participate in the CPP program unless the evidence establishes the option would in fact exist for him upon his unconditional release from detention. The letter only indicated he might qualify, not that he had been accepted. The trial court properly refused to allow the letter into evidence.
71.09: A jury demand made after a 71.09 case has been set for trial is generally too late.
71.09: First degree statutory rape is a automatically “crime of sexual violence.”
In Re Coppin, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64963-9)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The State sought to have Mr. Coppin civilly committed under RCW 71.09. Six days prior to trial Mr. Coppin waived his right to a jury trial. On the first morning of trial he requested a jury trial.
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Coppin a jury trial on the first morning of trial. A jury demand made after a 71.09 case has been set for trial is generally too late.
In order to have a person civilly committed under RCW 71.09, the State must show the person has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence. Here, first degree statutory rape is automatically “crime of sexual violence,” and the State need not specifically show the crime involved violence.
Felony DUI: Whether a prior offense meets the statutory definition of 46.61.5055(13) is not an element of the crime. It is a threshold question of law for the court to determine admissibility of the prior offense at trial.
State v. Chambers, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 61857-1)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged and convicted of felony DUI. Her prior offenses included three Washington convictions and a California conviction. The defense requested a bifurcated trial, which the court denied, then argued that the jury had to find the out of state prior met the definition of prior offense.
Held: The validity of a prior conviction is a question of law and a threshold question of admissibility for the court to decide, but the fact that the defendant has prior convictions that elevate a crime to a felony is a essential element that he State must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Duress Defense: Prior criminal association with others which recklessly contributes to the circumstances of duress is an exception to the defense.
State v. Healy, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 62994-8)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was tried for burglarizing model homes. He testified that he was forced to commit the crimes by two former associates who threatened him and his 82 year old mother. The jury was instructed on the defense of duress, including optional language explaining that the defense is not available if the defendant recklessly puts himself in a situation likely to result in duress.
Held: Here, the court properly allowed the language in the instruction on the recklessness exception. The defendant testified that he had previously been criminally involved with the associates who forced him to commit these crimes and he failed to avail himself of several non-criminal options when he was threatened.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: A prosecutor may comment on a witness’ veracity as long as the prosecutor does not express a personal opinion and the comments are not intended to incite the passions of the jury.
Sentencing: Because the free crimes aggravator falls into the prior conviction exception to Blakely, notice is not required before the State seeks an exceptional sentence under that aggravator.
State v. Edvalds, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64953-1)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of burglary, theft and possession of drugs. On appeal he alleged prosecutorial misconduct. During trial the prosecutor questioned the defendant’s credibility. He also mentioned surveillance despite an order in limine that the parties not use the term surveillance.
Held: Regarding the comments on the defendant’s credibility, the defendant failed to show on appeal that the comments were improper or created prejudice. A prosecutor may comment on a witness’ veracity as long as the prosecutor does not express a personal opinion and the comments are not intended to incite the passions of the jury. Regarding the mention of surveillance, the prosecutor did his best to abide by the court’s order in limine while having an officer identify the defendant.
After trial but prior to sentencing, the defendant pleaded guilty to several new felonies. The State sought an exceptional sentence on the charges the defendant had taken to trial under the free crimes provision of the SRA. On appeal, the defendant argued the State’s failure to give him notice that it would be seeking an exceptional sentence meant the court could not impose an exceptional sentence. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding the because the free crimes aggravator falls into the prior conviction exception to Blakely, notice is not required before the State seeks an exceptional sentence under that aggravator.
Indecent Exposure: A witness does not need to observe exposed genitalia to prove the crime of indecent exposure.
Sentencing/Sexual Motivation/404b: The aggravator may be proven by prior convictions if they establish a sexually motivated pattern of behavior.
Double Jeopardy/Unit of Prosecution: The unit of prosecution for indecent exposure is per exposure, not per witness, even if exposure to witnesses is separated by time.
State v. Vars, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64963-9)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of indecent exposure with sexual motivation for roaming the streets of a Kirkland neighborhood in the early morning hours naked. Two witnesses saw him but did not see his genitalia. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the underlying crime as well as the aggravator. The trial court allowed in evidence of 3 of the defendant’s 8 similar priors to establish proof of the aggravator.
Held: A witness need not see the offender’s exposed genitalia to establish proof of the underlying crime. If an obscene exposure takes place when another is present, and the offender knew the exposure likely would cause reasonable alarm the offender has committed the crime. Here there was sufficient evidence of the sexual motivation aggravator. The common elements of the prior similar offenses permit the reasonable inference that the conduct was sexually motivated.
Sealed Records: Redacted indigent defense billing records of a closed criminal case may be accessed by the media under GR 15.
State v. Mendez, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 27535-3)(Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with Aggravated Murder in Yakima County and the State filed a death penalty notice. The court appointed death penalty qualified attorneys. A “budget judge” that was separate from the trial judge was appointed to address costs and attorney fees. Defense counsel sought an obtained an order sealing the billing records and related documents. After the case resolved, the Yakima Herald sought the billing records under the Public Records Act. The trial court denied the motion. The paper appealed then later moved to intervene, arguing that the records could be unsealed under GR 15 (e)(2) since the case was final. The trial court granted the motion to unseal the documents subject to redactions to protect privileged communications and attorney work product.
Held: The newspaper has standing to intervene to unseal the records, and the court did not err when allowing access to unprivileged materials.
Criminal Mistreatment: Child and Dependant are Not Mutually Exclusive Terms
State v. Mitchell, ___ Wn.2d ___ (Aug. 12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of criminal mistreatment for the abuse and neglect of a four year old boy.
Held: The State established beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the crime. The terms child and dependent are not mutually exclusive for purposes of establishing whether “people who assume responsibility to provide the basic necessities of life for a dependent person” can be found guilty of criminal mistreatment when the victim is a child.
Persistent Offender: Verdict Finding of Firearm Facially Valid in Determining whether the Defendant Was Armed with a Deadly Weapon
In re Cruze, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was sentenced to life in prison as a persistent offender. Several years after the one year time limit to appeal had passed, he filed a PRP and challenged the second strike conviction, a 1996 drug conviction with a special verdict finding that he was armed with a firearm at the time of the drug crime. In the PRP, he argued that the 1996 conviction was facially invalid and should not qualify as a “most serious offense.”
Held: A deadly weapon verdict is any verdict or finding made in compliance with the procedures of former RCW 9.94A.125 that determines that the defendant used an item that former RCW 9.94A.125 defined as a deadly weapon. Where state established that the defendant was armed with a firearm, and not specifically a deadly weapon, the conviction is facially valid and the one-year time bar applies.
Search/Seizure: Gant Still Applies; No Good Faith Exception for Police
State v Adams, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was arrested on a warrant and his vehicle was searched incident to arrest, yielding drugs. Here, the defendant was not in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, there was no officer safety concern and no need to secure evidence of the crime of arrest. The State argued good faith exception should apply.
Held: There is no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under the Washington Constitution.
Double Jeopardy: Violated when court explicitly holds vacated less conviction alive for reinstatement should the more serious conviction for the same criminal conduct fail on appeal.
State v. Turner, __ Wn.2d ___ (Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: Two separate defendants were convicted of multiple crimes. Based on double jeopardy some lesser crimes were vacated at sentencing but conditionally. The trial courts issued order stating that if the greater convictions were overturned on appeal, the convictions of the vacated crimes could be reinstated.
Held: In some circumstances that a lesser conviction previously vacated may be revived following appellate reversal of the more serious conviction, but explicit conditional vacation of a lesser conviction violates double jeopardy. The court may not state orally, or include in the judgment and sentence, any reference to the vacated conviction, nor can the court make reference to the vacated conviction at sentencing.
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS
Sentencing/Crime Against Law Enforcement Officer: Sufficient evidence supports the aggravating circumstance that the defendant committed the crime against a law enforcement officer.
Search/Seizure: an unlawful seizure by police does not justify shooting at the police officer when only faced with loss of freedom. A person may only use reasonable and proportional force to resist injury from an officer.
State v Mann, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div. III) (No. 27317-2-III) (Aug.12, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction. He ran from the scene, fleeing after the patrol officer instructed him to stop. Police followed his footprints and found him. Gunfire was exchanged and he was arrested. He was charged with and convicted of assault 1, and other weapons and drug charges, and the aggravator of committing the offense against a law enforcement officer. He received an exceptional sentence of 48 months above the standard range. The defendant challenged the seizure for the first time on appeal.
Held: There was sufficient evidence to show the defendant knew that the victim was a law enforcement officer. The defendant testified that he thought it was the police that found him and told him to surrender, but denied shooting intentionally. Forensic evidence contradicted the defendant’s version of an accidental shooting.
The seizure was unlawful, but that did not excuse the defendant’s conduct of shooting at the officer. A person can use reasonable and proportional force to resist injury from an officer during an arrest but not when faced only with loss of freedom.
71.09: evidence that a respondent may be eligible for the CPP program is not admissible in 71.09 proceeding unless the option would certainly exist upon unconditional release.
In Re Mulkins, ___ Wn.App. ___ (Div I)(No. 63222-1-I)(Aug. 9, 2010)
Facts: The respondent had two prior convictions for child molestation, one juvenile and one adult. Prior to his release from prison on the adult matter, the State filed a 71.09 petition. While serving his sentence, he received a letter from DSHS indicating he might be eligible for a voluntary program of supervision (CPP). He sought to introduce the letter at trial but the court denied it.
Held: A respondent in a 71.09 proceeding is not entitled to present evidence that he is eligible to participate in the CPP program unless the evidence establishes the option would in fact exist for him upon his unconditional release from detention. The letter only indicated he might qualify, not that he had been accepted. The trial court properly refused to allow the letter into evidence.
71.09: A jury demand made after a 71.09 case has been set for trial is generally too late.
71.09: First degree statutory rape is a automatically “crime of sexual violence.”
In Re Coppin, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64963-9)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The State sought to have Mr. Coppin civilly committed under RCW 71.09. Six days prior to trial Mr. Coppin waived his right to a jury trial. On the first morning of trial he requested a jury trial.
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Coppin a jury trial on the first morning of trial. A jury demand made after a 71.09 case has been set for trial is generally too late.
In order to have a person civilly committed under RCW 71.09, the State must show the person has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence. Here, first degree statutory rape is automatically “crime of sexual violence,” and the State need not specifically show the crime involved violence.
Felony DUI: Whether a prior offense meets the statutory definition of 46.61.5055(13) is not an element of the crime. It is a threshold question of law for the court to determine admissibility of the prior offense at trial.
State v. Chambers, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 61857-1)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged and convicted of felony DUI. Her prior offenses included three Washington convictions and a California conviction. The defense requested a bifurcated trial, which the court denied, then argued that the jury had to find the out of state prior met the definition of prior offense.
Held: The validity of a prior conviction is a question of law and a threshold question of admissibility for the court to decide, but the fact that the defendant has prior convictions that elevate a crime to a felony is a essential element that he State must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Duress Defense: Prior criminal association with others which recklessly contributes to the circumstances of duress is an exception to the defense.
State v. Healy, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 62994-8)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was tried for burglarizing model homes. He testified that he was forced to commit the crimes by two former associates who threatened him and his 82 year old mother. The jury was instructed on the defense of duress, including optional language explaining that the defense is not available if the defendant recklessly puts himself in a situation likely to result in duress.
Held: Here, the court properly allowed the language in the instruction on the recklessness exception. The defendant testified that he had previously been criminally involved with the associates who forced him to commit these crimes and he failed to avail himself of several non-criminal options when he was threatened.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: A prosecutor may comment on a witness’ veracity as long as the prosecutor does not express a personal opinion and the comments are not intended to incite the passions of the jury.
Sentencing: Because the free crimes aggravator falls into the prior conviction exception to Blakely, notice is not required before the State seeks an exceptional sentence under that aggravator.
State v. Edvalds, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64953-1)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of burglary, theft and possession of drugs. On appeal he alleged prosecutorial misconduct. During trial the prosecutor questioned the defendant’s credibility. He also mentioned surveillance despite an order in limine that the parties not use the term surveillance.
Held: Regarding the comments on the defendant’s credibility, the defendant failed to show on appeal that the comments were improper or created prejudice. A prosecutor may comment on a witness’ veracity as long as the prosecutor does not express a personal opinion and the comments are not intended to incite the passions of the jury. Regarding the mention of surveillance, the prosecutor did his best to abide by the court’s order in limine while having an officer identify the defendant.
After trial but prior to sentencing, the defendant pleaded guilty to several new felonies. The State sought an exceptional sentence on the charges the defendant had taken to trial under the free crimes provision of the SRA. On appeal, the defendant argued the State’s failure to give him notice that it would be seeking an exceptional sentence meant the court could not impose an exceptional sentence. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding the because the free crimes aggravator falls into the prior conviction exception to Blakely, notice is not required before the State seeks an exceptional sentence under that aggravator.
Indecent Exposure: A witness does not need to observe exposed genitalia to prove the crime of indecent exposure.
Sentencing/Sexual Motivation/404b: The aggravator may be proven by prior convictions if they establish a sexually motivated pattern of behavior.
Double Jeopardy/Unit of Prosecution: The unit of prosecution for indecent exposure is per exposure, not per witness, even if exposure to witnesses is separated by time.
State v. Vars, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 64963-9)(Aug 16, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of indecent exposure with sexual motivation for roaming the streets of a Kirkland neighborhood in the early morning hours naked. Two witnesses saw him but did not see his genitalia. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the underlying crime as well as the aggravator. The trial court allowed in evidence of 3 of the defendant’s 8 similar priors to establish proof of the aggravator.
Held: A witness need not see the offender’s exposed genitalia to establish proof of the underlying crime. If an obscene exposure takes place when another is present, and the offender knew the exposure likely would cause reasonable alarm the offender has committed the crime. Here there was sufficient evidence of the sexual motivation aggravator. The common elements of the prior similar offenses permit the reasonable inference that the conduct was sexually motivated.
Sealed Records: Redacted indigent defense billing records of a closed criminal case may be accessed by the media under GR 15.
State v. Mendez, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(No. 27535-3)(Aug 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with Aggravated Murder in Yakima County and the State filed a death penalty notice. The court appointed death penalty qualified attorneys. A “budget judge” that was separate from the trial judge was appointed to address costs and attorney fees. Defense counsel sought an obtained an order sealing the billing records and related documents. After the case resolved, the Yakima Herald sought the billing records under the Public Records Act. The trial court denied the motion. The paper appealed then later moved to intervene, arguing that the records could be unsealed under GR 15 (e)(2) since the case was final. The trial court granted the motion to unseal the documents subject to redactions to protect privileged communications and attorney work product.
Held: The newspaper has standing to intervene to unseal the records, and the court did not err when allowing access to unprivileged materials.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Supreme Court Opinions, August 26, 2010
State v. Bunker, No Contact Orders
Former RCW 26.50.110 criminalizes all no-contact order violations and is not limited to contacts with the protected party that are violent, threaten violence or occur in a specifically prohibited place.
State v. Kintz, Stalking
Trial court's interpretation of "separate occasions" upheld where the the acts were "dinstinct, individual, noncontinuance occurence or incident", but not necessarily separated in time. In both incidents, defendant's conduct occurred over a very short period of time.
State v. Meneses, Telephone Harassment (Mens Rea); Double Jeopardy
Telephone Harassment requires that the jury find that the defendant form the intent to harass at the time the call is "made".
Convictions for telephone harassment and intimidating a witness may not violate the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
These and all other cases from the last ninety days can be found here:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.recent
Former RCW 26.50.110 criminalizes all no-contact order violations and is not limited to contacts with the protected party that are violent, threaten violence or occur in a specifically prohibited place.
State v. Kintz, Stalking
Trial court's interpretation of "separate occasions" upheld where the the acts were "dinstinct, individual, noncontinuance occurence or incident", but not necessarily separated in time. In both incidents, defendant's conduct occurred over a very short period of time.
State v. Meneses, Telephone Harassment (Mens Rea); Double Jeopardy
Telephone Harassment requires that the jury find that the defendant form the intent to harass at the time the call is "made".
Convictions for telephone harassment and intimidating a witness may not violate the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
These and all other cases from the last ninety days can be found here:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.recent
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Supreme Court Opinions, August 19, 2010
Stave v. Adams, Search and Seizure: Gant Still Applies; No Good Faith Exception for Police Acting Under Good Faith
Where the arrested person is not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle at the time of the search and the search was not triggered by officer safety concerns or the need to secure evidence of the crime for which the suspect was arrested, the search violates the 4th amendment and the evidence obtained is the fruit of an illegal search. There is no “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule in cases that involve police acting under a mistaken but good faith belief that their actions were constitutional.
State v. Turner, Double Jeopardy: Violated when court explicitly holds vacated less conviction alive for reinstatement should the more serious conviction for the same criminal conduct fail on appeal.
A court may violate double jeopardy either by reducing to judgment both the greater and the lesser of two convictions for the same offense or by conditionally vacating the lesser conviction while directing, in some form or another, that the conviction nonetheless remains valid. A judgment and sentence must not include any reference to the vacated conviction-nor may an order appended thereto include such a reference; similarly, no reference should be made to the vacated conviction at sentencing.
These and all other opinions from the last 90 days can be found on the courts web page. Here is a link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent
Where the arrested person is not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle at the time of the search and the search was not triggered by officer safety concerns or the need to secure evidence of the crime for which the suspect was arrested, the search violates the 4th amendment and the evidence obtained is the fruit of an illegal search. There is no “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule in cases that involve police acting under a mistaken but good faith belief that their actions were constitutional.
State v. Turner, Double Jeopardy: Violated when court explicitly holds vacated less conviction alive for reinstatement should the more serious conviction for the same criminal conduct fail on appeal.
A court may violate double jeopardy either by reducing to judgment both the greater and the lesser of two convictions for the same offense or by conditionally vacating the lesser conviction while directing, in some form or another, that the conviction nonetheless remains valid. A judgment and sentence must not include any reference to the vacated conviction-nor may an order appended thereto include such a reference; similarly, no reference should be made to the vacated conviction at sentencing.
These and all other opinions from the last 90 days can be found on the courts web page. Here is a link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Case Law Updates
July 26 – August 6, 2010
Washington State Supreme Court
Death Penalty: The legislature properly delegated authority to DOC to create a protocol for executions.
Brown v. Vail, __ Wn.2d___ (July 29, 2010)
Facts: The appellants were death row inmates who challenged DOC’s three drug protocol for executions.
Held: DOC abandoned the three drug execution protocol in March 2010 and adopted a one drug protocol, making appellants’ argument moot. However, the court addressed appellants’ other arguments. The legislature properly delegated to DOC the authority to establish a protocol for executions.
Harassment: A true threat requires proof that the defendant was at least negligent as to his statements’ effect on listeners. Jury instructions should define true threats.
State v. Schaler, __ Wn.2d___ (July 29, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of two counts of felony harassment for saying during a mental health exam that he wanted to kill two of his neighbors. However, the jury was not instructed that the defendant’s statements had to be true threats to support a conviction.
Held: A true threat requires proof that the defendant was at least negligent as to his statements’ effect on listeners. In other words, the State must establish that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threats. Here, because the jury instructions did not define a true threat, a jury might have convicted the defendant for statements that were not true threats. The error was not harmless.
Judicial Discipline: Judge Eiler violated CJC 3(A)(3).
In re Eiler, __ Wn.2d___ (August 5, 2010)
Facts: Judge Eiler was rude and demeaning to pro se litigants and attorneys in her courtroom.
Held: Judge Eiler violated cannon 3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous. The proper penalty was a 5-day suspension.
Search and Seizure: Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search. Officers must seek a search warrant unless exigencies make that impractical.
State v. Tibbles, __ Wn.2d___ (August 5, 2010)
Facts: A police officer stopped the defendant’s car for an equipment violation and smelled marijuana. The officer did not arrest the defendant but searched the car and found marijuana. The defendant was not fleeing.
Held: The marijuana should have been suppressed because no exception to the warrant requirement applied to allow the search. Here, the officer could have sought a warrant but did not. The existence of probable cause will support an application for a warrant, but alone it does not support a warrantless search.
Court of Appeals
NGRI: The maximum term a person can be committed for following a finding of NGRI is the statutory maximum sentence for any one of the charged offenses.
State v. Reanier ___ Wash.App.___ (Div I) (August 2, 2010)
Facts: The defendant entered a plea agreement whereby the State amended his charge of second degree assault to two counts of third degree assault. The maximum sentence for third degree assault is 5 years. The court then entered an order of acquittal by reason of insanity and ordered the defendant committed for treatment for 10 years, or two consecutive 5 year terms.
Held: RCW 10.77.025(1) says that, following an acquittal by reason of insanity, the defendant can be committed for a term that does not exceed the maximum sentence. Here, the Court of Appeals held that the five-year maximum sentence for third degree assault was the maximum amount of time the defendant could be committed. The trial court acted illegally when it ran two five year terms consecutively.
Dependency: The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to parental placements.
In re Dependency of D. F-M ___ Wash.App.___ (Div I) (August 2, 2010)
Facts: D lived with his mother in Washington, and D’s father lived in Oklahoma. When DSHS sought to limit the mother’s parental rights, D’s father asked to have D live with him in Oklahoma. However, the father’s housing was inadequate under an Oklahoma policy, but not under Washington’s policies. The Washington Court sent D to live with his father in Oklahoma in spite of the housing issue, which resulted in there being no positive interstate compact on placement of children (ICPC) home study.
Held: The ICPC does not apply when a child is placed with that child’s parent, so it was permissible for the court to send D to live with his father in Oklahoma despite the lack of a positive ICPC home study.
Washington State Supreme Court
Death Penalty: The legislature properly delegated authority to DOC to create a protocol for executions.
Brown v. Vail, __ Wn.2d___ (July 29, 2010)
Facts: The appellants were death row inmates who challenged DOC’s three drug protocol for executions.
Held: DOC abandoned the three drug execution protocol in March 2010 and adopted a one drug protocol, making appellants’ argument moot. However, the court addressed appellants’ other arguments. The legislature properly delegated to DOC the authority to establish a protocol for executions.
Harassment: A true threat requires proof that the defendant was at least negligent as to his statements’ effect on listeners. Jury instructions should define true threats.
State v. Schaler, __ Wn.2d___ (July 29, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of two counts of felony harassment for saying during a mental health exam that he wanted to kill two of his neighbors. However, the jury was not instructed that the defendant’s statements had to be true threats to support a conviction.
Held: A true threat requires proof that the defendant was at least negligent as to his statements’ effect on listeners. In other words, the State must establish that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threats. Here, because the jury instructions did not define a true threat, a jury might have convicted the defendant for statements that were not true threats. The error was not harmless.
Judicial Discipline: Judge Eiler violated CJC 3(A)(3).
In re Eiler, __ Wn.2d___ (August 5, 2010)
Facts: Judge Eiler was rude and demeaning to pro se litigants and attorneys in her courtroom.
Held: Judge Eiler violated cannon 3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous. The proper penalty was a 5-day suspension.
Search and Seizure: Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search. Officers must seek a search warrant unless exigencies make that impractical.
State v. Tibbles, __ Wn.2d___ (August 5, 2010)
Facts: A police officer stopped the defendant’s car for an equipment violation and smelled marijuana. The officer did not arrest the defendant but searched the car and found marijuana. The defendant was not fleeing.
Held: The marijuana should have been suppressed because no exception to the warrant requirement applied to allow the search. Here, the officer could have sought a warrant but did not. The existence of probable cause will support an application for a warrant, but alone it does not support a warrantless search.
Court of Appeals
NGRI: The maximum term a person can be committed for following a finding of NGRI is the statutory maximum sentence for any one of the charged offenses.
State v. Reanier ___ Wash.App.___ (Div I) (August 2, 2010)
Facts: The defendant entered a plea agreement whereby the State amended his charge of second degree assault to two counts of third degree assault. The maximum sentence for third degree assault is 5 years. The court then entered an order of acquittal by reason of insanity and ordered the defendant committed for treatment for 10 years, or two consecutive 5 year terms.
Held: RCW 10.77.025(1) says that, following an acquittal by reason of insanity, the defendant can be committed for a term that does not exceed the maximum sentence. Here, the Court of Appeals held that the five-year maximum sentence for third degree assault was the maximum amount of time the defendant could be committed. The trial court acted illegally when it ran two five year terms consecutively.
Dependency: The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to parental placements.
In re Dependency of D. F-M ___ Wash.App.___ (Div I) (August 2, 2010)
Facts: D lived with his mother in Washington, and D’s father lived in Oklahoma. When DSHS sought to limit the mother’s parental rights, D’s father asked to have D live with him in Oklahoma. However, the father’s housing was inadequate under an Oklahoma policy, but not under Washington’s policies. The Washington Court sent D to live with his father in Oklahoma in spite of the housing issue, which resulted in there being no positive interstate compact on placement of children (ICPC) home study.
Held: The ICPC does not apply when a child is placed with that child’s parent, so it was permissible for the court to send D to live with his father in Oklahoma despite the lack of a positive ICPC home study.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Case Law Updates - July 12-23, 2010
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
Statute of Limitations: No tolling of the statute of limitations occurs when the defendant goes out of state for job-related training.
State v. Williamson, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No 84036-9)(July 15, 2010)
Facts: The Defendant was charged with two counts of indecent liberties, one count occurring outside the statute of limitations (SOL) by 14 days. The Defendant had been out of state for job related training for 2 weeks during the relevant time period. The trial court found that there was no evidence that the defendant intended to relocate and dismissed the case. The COA reversed, holding that the mere absence from the state was sufficient to toll the SOL.
Held: Mere absence from the state, without an intent to relocate, does not toll the statute of limitations.
Information/Sufficiency: An information must allege the essential elements to be constitutionally sufficient.
State v. Brown, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No. 84083-1)(July 15, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with escape for failing to return to jail following a furlough granted to allow him to attend drug treatment. The complaint alleged that he escaped from custody “contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided.” He challenged the information for the first time on appeal.
Held: The information failed to allege the defendant acted knowingly, an essential element of escape. When a challenge to the information is raised for the first time on appeal, the court construes the document liberally, in favor of validity The court asks (1) whether the essential elements appear in any form or can be found by any fair construction and if so (2) whether the defendant was prejudiced. Here, the essential element did not appear by any fair construction. The proper remedy was dismissal without prejudice.
Duress: Duress does not require a direct threat; it may be based on an implicit threat, so long as the perception of the threat is reasonable.
State v. Harvill, ____ Wn.2d ___ (No 82358-8)(July 22, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with delivery of cocaine and asked for a jury instruction on the defense of duress. The trial court denied the instruction on the ground that duress required evidence of an explicit threat. The defendant had testified and presented evidence of an implicit threat, based on his knowledge of the informant and past violent behavior of the informant.
Held: Duress can be asserted based on an implied threat if the perception of a threat is reasonable. The perception of the threat of harm can take into account the history between the actors.
Information/Sufficiency: The court can consider the information as a whole when liberally construing one count in a multiple count information
State v. Nonog, ___ Wn.2d. ___ (No 82094-5 )(July 22, 2010)
Facts: The information charged the defendant with interference with reporting domestic violence without specifying the underlying domestic violence crime. Two other counts in the same information charged crimes of domestic violence occurring on the same day.
Held: The information is liberally construed when challenged for the first time on appeal. The court may consider the whole information when liberally construing the challenged count. Here, the information was sufficient because it reasonably apprised the defendant that the underlying crimes of domestic violence were the ones alleged elsewhere in the same information.
COURT OF APPEALS
Search/Seizure: Dog sniff of area outside of a parked car is not a search.
ER 4040(b): Evidence of prior bad acts properly admitted as circumstantial
evidence connecting the defendant to the crime.
Limiting Instruction: Use of the permissive word “may” in the limiting instruction did not result in the judge commenting on the evidence.
Open Door: A defendant may open the door to inadmissible evidence, even if constitutionally protected, if the rebuttal evidence is relevant.
State v. Hartzell; State v. Tieskotter, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: These co-defendants were convicted of assault, possession of unlawful firearms and deadly weapon enhancements for shooting into an apartment while a woman and her daughter were sleeping. Police connected the defendants to the crime soon after the event, when investigating other incidents in which the defendants possessed firearms that later were tested and connected to the crime. Evidence of the other incidents was admitted at trial under ER 404(b) to show a connection between the defendants, the guns used and the crime. A limiting instruction was offered.
For defendant Harzell, police used dog to sniff of the area outside the defendant’s car to locate a firearm.
Held: The dog sniff of the air outside the parked car was not a search because the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the air coming from the open window in his vehicle. The prior bad acts evidence was properly admitted because it was circumstantial evidence connecting the defendants to the guns used in the assault. Several other issues were raised and addressed, including open door, maximum sentence, prosecutorial misconduct and sufficiency of the evidence, all resolved against the defendant.
General/specific: Under 9A.76.175 and 46.61.020, charges relating to providing false information to law enforcement, do not punish the same conduct.
State v. Ou, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with knowingly making a false or misleading statement under RCW 9A.76.175, a gross misdemeanor, for providing a false name to a police officer during a traffic stop. On appeal, he argued that he should have been charged under the more specific statute, refusal to give information or giving a false name or address under RCW 46.61.020.
Held: When a specific statute and a general statute punish the same conduct, the statutes are concurrent and the State may only charge under the specific statute. Here, the general statute contained elements the specific statute did not. Moreover, a person could violate 46.61.020 without violating 9A.76.175. Thus, the crimes to do not punish the same conduct.
Dependency: For duress to be grounds to revoke consent to adoption, it must be exerted by the party requesting consent.
In Re the Welfare of M.S., ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: The appellant birth mother voluntarily relinquished her rights to DSHS in exchange for an open adoption arrangement. She later sought to revoke her consent arguing duress based on her mother’s conduct.
Held: Duress exerted by the party requesting the parent’s consent is a basis to revoke the consent. Here, the mother of the birth mother was not he party requesting consent, DSHS was.
Public Trial: The trial court musts consider the Bone-Club factors prior to closing the court room to the public.
State v. Bowen, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(39096-5-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was arrested for possession of drugs and firearms. At trial, the court conducted some of the voir dire in chambers without conducting the Bone-Club analysis and without considering alternatives. Defense counsel failed to object.
Held: A trial court may close a courtroom under certain circumstances, but it must first apply the Bone-Club guidelines, which include considering less restrictive alternatives to closure. Here, the trial court violated the defendant’s public trial right by conducting voir dire of some of the jurors in chambers because it did not conduct the proper analysis. The court distinguishes this case from St v. Momah and analogizes this case to St v. Strode, both recent cases dealing with a similar issue.
Assault: Forcing unwanted medical attention may constitute an assault.
State v. Koch, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(38429-9-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in connection with the death of his father. He had been caring for his father, who was ill and refused medical treatment. Previously, the defendant had slapped his father during an argument pertaining to his father’s need for medical assistance. The father had reported the slap to the police and the defendant was prosecuted for assault. At trial, the defendant produced evidence that his father refused medical care and sought to introduce a jury instruction that forcing unwanted medical attention may constitute an assault. The trial court denied the instruction.
Held: A defendant has a due process right to jury instructions that support his theory of defense if arguably supported by the evidence. Here, the court erred in denying the defendant’s proposed jury instruction.
Exclusion of Witnesses(ER 615): A court must conduct a hearing to determine the factual circumstances surrounding a possible violation of ER 615 before excluding a witness.
State v. Szuka, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(38042-1-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with bail jumping and other counts. At trial, he planned to call the bail bondsperson as a witness. The judge had seen the defendant and the witness talking outside the courtroom and overheard a part of their conversation including what testimony the witness would provide. The judge advised the parties the next day about what he had overheard and ordered that the witness would not be allowed to testify.
Held: The trial judge erred when excluding the defense witness’ testimony. Here, the trial judge had become a witness when he overheard the conversation. He notified the parties and made a statement about what he heard, but was not subject to cross examination. The trial judge did not conduct a factual hearing into the possible ER 615 violation, and imposing the harshest punishment upon the defendant was improper.
Persistent Offender: An adult conviction for a juvenile defendant is a most serious offense if the juvenile knowingly and intelligently waives a decline hearing and stipulates to adult court jurisdiction.
404(b): Evidence of gang affiliation and witness intimidation may be admitted to show intent and knowledge.
State v. Saenz, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div III)(27683-0-III)(July 13, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of two counts of assault 1 and unlawful possession of a firearm. A witness testified at trial that he had received threats and was assaulted in jail by a group of inmates that he assumed were acting on behalf of the defendant.
At sentencing the defendant challenged whether a prior offense, a conviction for assault 2 which occurred when the defendant was 15 and which was transferred to adult court qualified as a prior most serious offense. The defendant had waived a decline hearing and had stipulated to adult jurisdiction in that case.
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence of gang affiliation and witness intimidation. The trial court weighed the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice. The court determined that the evidence of gang affiliation was probative to show that the shooting was intentional not accidental and that the intimidation showed guilty knowledge of the defendant and that in both instances the probative value outweighed the potential prejudice.
The prior conviction for assault 2 when the defendant was 15 may be scored as a most serious offense. The defendant waived the decline hearing and stipulated to jurisdiction of adult court. The waiver was knowing and intelligent.
Guilty Plea: A guilty plea based on mistaken information concerning sentencing consequences is involuntary; a defendant may choose specific performance or may move to withdraw his plea.
In re the Post Sentence Review of Hudgens (Div III) (28423-9)(July 13, 2010)
Facts: The defendant plead guilty to Rape of a Child in the Third Degree and the court sentenced him to a determinate sentence followed by a period of community custody. Neither the parties nor the court knew that he was supposed to receive an indeterminate sentence, the maximum being the statutory maximum and the minimum term within the standard range. The DOC contacted the State about the error and moved to have the sentence amended to comply with the statute. The defendant sought specific performance, which the trial court granted.
Held: The defendant’s plea was involuntary because it was based on a mistake as to the consequences. He was entitled to either seek specific performance or move to withdraw his plea. Here, the defendant’s choice was not unjust and the trial court properly granted his request for specific performance.
Statute of Limitations: No tolling of the statute of limitations occurs when the defendant goes out of state for job-related training.
State v. Williamson, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No 84036-9)(July 15, 2010)
Facts: The Defendant was charged with two counts of indecent liberties, one count occurring outside the statute of limitations (SOL) by 14 days. The Defendant had been out of state for job related training for 2 weeks during the relevant time period. The trial court found that there was no evidence that the defendant intended to relocate and dismissed the case. The COA reversed, holding that the mere absence from the state was sufficient to toll the SOL.
Held: Mere absence from the state, without an intent to relocate, does not toll the statute of limitations.
Information/Sufficiency: An information must allege the essential elements to be constitutionally sufficient.
State v. Brown, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No. 84083-1)(July 15, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with escape for failing to return to jail following a furlough granted to allow him to attend drug treatment. The complaint alleged that he escaped from custody “contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided.” He challenged the information for the first time on appeal.
Held: The information failed to allege the defendant acted knowingly, an essential element of escape. When a challenge to the information is raised for the first time on appeal, the court construes the document liberally, in favor of validity The court asks (1) whether the essential elements appear in any form or can be found by any fair construction and if so (2) whether the defendant was prejudiced. Here, the essential element did not appear by any fair construction. The proper remedy was dismissal without prejudice.
Duress: Duress does not require a direct threat; it may be based on an implicit threat, so long as the perception of the threat is reasonable.
State v. Harvill, ____ Wn.2d ___ (No 82358-8)(July 22, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with delivery of cocaine and asked for a jury instruction on the defense of duress. The trial court denied the instruction on the ground that duress required evidence of an explicit threat. The defendant had testified and presented evidence of an implicit threat, based on his knowledge of the informant and past violent behavior of the informant.
Held: Duress can be asserted based on an implied threat if the perception of a threat is reasonable. The perception of the threat of harm can take into account the history between the actors.
Information/Sufficiency: The court can consider the information as a whole when liberally construing one count in a multiple count information
State v. Nonog, ___ Wn.2d. ___ (No 82094-5 )(July 22, 2010)
Facts: The information charged the defendant with interference with reporting domestic violence without specifying the underlying domestic violence crime. Two other counts in the same information charged crimes of domestic violence occurring on the same day.
Held: The information is liberally construed when challenged for the first time on appeal. The court may consider the whole information when liberally construing the challenged count. Here, the information was sufficient because it reasonably apprised the defendant that the underlying crimes of domestic violence were the ones alleged elsewhere in the same information.
COURT OF APPEALS
Search/Seizure: Dog sniff of area outside of a parked car is not a search.
ER 4040(b): Evidence of prior bad acts properly admitted as circumstantial
evidence connecting the defendant to the crime.
Limiting Instruction: Use of the permissive word “may” in the limiting instruction did not result in the judge commenting on the evidence.
Open Door: A defendant may open the door to inadmissible evidence, even if constitutionally protected, if the rebuttal evidence is relevant.
State v. Hartzell; State v. Tieskotter, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: These co-defendants were convicted of assault, possession of unlawful firearms and deadly weapon enhancements for shooting into an apartment while a woman and her daughter were sleeping. Police connected the defendants to the crime soon after the event, when investigating other incidents in which the defendants possessed firearms that later were tested and connected to the crime. Evidence of the other incidents was admitted at trial under ER 404(b) to show a connection between the defendants, the guns used and the crime. A limiting instruction was offered.
For defendant Harzell, police used dog to sniff of the area outside the defendant’s car to locate a firearm.
Held: The dog sniff of the air outside the parked car was not a search because the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the air coming from the open window in his vehicle. The prior bad acts evidence was properly admitted because it was circumstantial evidence connecting the defendants to the guns used in the assault. Several other issues were raised and addressed, including open door, maximum sentence, prosecutorial misconduct and sufficiency of the evidence, all resolved against the defendant.
General/specific: Under 9A.76.175 and 46.61.020, charges relating to providing false information to law enforcement, do not punish the same conduct.
State v. Ou, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with knowingly making a false or misleading statement under RCW 9A.76.175, a gross misdemeanor, for providing a false name to a police officer during a traffic stop. On appeal, he argued that he should have been charged under the more specific statute, refusal to give information or giving a false name or address under RCW 46.61.020.
Held: When a specific statute and a general statute punish the same conduct, the statutes are concurrent and the State may only charge under the specific statute. Here, the general statute contained elements the specific statute did not. Moreover, a person could violate 46.61.020 without violating 9A.76.175. Thus, the crimes to do not punish the same conduct.
Dependency: For duress to be grounds to revoke consent to adoption, it must be exerted by the party requesting consent.
In Re the Welfare of M.S., ___ Wn.App.___ (Div I)(July 19, 2010)
Facts: The appellant birth mother voluntarily relinquished her rights to DSHS in exchange for an open adoption arrangement. She later sought to revoke her consent arguing duress based on her mother’s conduct.
Held: Duress exerted by the party requesting the parent’s consent is a basis to revoke the consent. Here, the mother of the birth mother was not he party requesting consent, DSHS was.
Public Trial: The trial court musts consider the Bone-Club factors prior to closing the court room to the public.
State v. Bowen, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(39096-5-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was arrested for possession of drugs and firearms. At trial, the court conducted some of the voir dire in chambers without conducting the Bone-Club analysis and without considering alternatives. Defense counsel failed to object.
Held: A trial court may close a courtroom under certain circumstances, but it must first apply the Bone-Club guidelines, which include considering less restrictive alternatives to closure. Here, the trial court violated the defendant’s public trial right by conducting voir dire of some of the jurors in chambers because it did not conduct the proper analysis. The court distinguishes this case from St v. Momah and analogizes this case to St v. Strode, both recent cases dealing with a similar issue.
Assault: Forcing unwanted medical attention may constitute an assault.
State v. Koch, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(38429-9-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in connection with the death of his father. He had been caring for his father, who was ill and refused medical treatment. Previously, the defendant had slapped his father during an argument pertaining to his father’s need for medical assistance. The father had reported the slap to the police and the defendant was prosecuted for assault. At trial, the defendant produced evidence that his father refused medical care and sought to introduce a jury instruction that forcing unwanted medical attention may constitute an assault. The trial court denied the instruction.
Held: A defendant has a due process right to jury instructions that support his theory of defense if arguably supported by the evidence. Here, the court erred in denying the defendant’s proposed jury instruction.
Exclusion of Witnesses(ER 615): A court must conduct a hearing to determine the factual circumstances surrounding a possible violation of ER 615 before excluding a witness.
State v. Szuka, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div II)(38042-1-II)(July 20, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was charged with bail jumping and other counts. At trial, he planned to call the bail bondsperson as a witness. The judge had seen the defendant and the witness talking outside the courtroom and overheard a part of their conversation including what testimony the witness would provide. The judge advised the parties the next day about what he had overheard and ordered that the witness would not be allowed to testify.
Held: The trial judge erred when excluding the defense witness’ testimony. Here, the trial judge had become a witness when he overheard the conversation. He notified the parties and made a statement about what he heard, but was not subject to cross examination. The trial judge did not conduct a factual hearing into the possible ER 615 violation, and imposing the harshest punishment upon the defendant was improper.
Persistent Offender: An adult conviction for a juvenile defendant is a most serious offense if the juvenile knowingly and intelligently waives a decline hearing and stipulates to adult court jurisdiction.
404(b): Evidence of gang affiliation and witness intimidation may be admitted to show intent and knowledge.
State v. Saenz, ___ Wn.App.___ (Div III)(27683-0-III)(July 13, 2010)
Facts: The defendant was convicted of two counts of assault 1 and unlawful possession of a firearm. A witness testified at trial that he had received threats and was assaulted in jail by a group of inmates that he assumed were acting on behalf of the defendant.
At sentencing the defendant challenged whether a prior offense, a conviction for assault 2 which occurred when the defendant was 15 and which was transferred to adult court qualified as a prior most serious offense. The defendant had waived a decline hearing and had stipulated to adult jurisdiction in that case.
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence of gang affiliation and witness intimidation. The trial court weighed the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice. The court determined that the evidence of gang affiliation was probative to show that the shooting was intentional not accidental and that the intimidation showed guilty knowledge of the defendant and that in both instances the probative value outweighed the potential prejudice.
The prior conviction for assault 2 when the defendant was 15 may be scored as a most serious offense. The defendant waived the decline hearing and stipulated to jurisdiction of adult court. The waiver was knowing and intelligent.
Guilty Plea: A guilty plea based on mistaken information concerning sentencing consequences is involuntary; a defendant may choose specific performance or may move to withdraw his plea.
In re the Post Sentence Review of Hudgens (Div III) (28423-9)(July 13, 2010)
Facts: The defendant plead guilty to Rape of a Child in the Third Degree and the court sentenced him to a determinate sentence followed by a period of community custody. Neither the parties nor the court knew that he was supposed to receive an indeterminate sentence, the maximum being the statutory maximum and the minimum term within the standard range. The DOC contacted the State about the error and moved to have the sentence amended to comply with the statute. The defendant sought specific performance, which the trial court granted.
Held: The defendant’s plea was involuntary because it was based on a mistake as to the consequences. He was entitled to either seek specific performance or move to withdraw his plea. Here, the defendant’s choice was not unjust and the trial court properly granted his request for specific performance.
50 Reasons to Legalize/Illegalize Marijuana Today
Split on whether or not to make medical or recreational marijuana legal? It is a volatile subject. With proponents on both sides feeling strongly about their issue, putting them together can be a recipe for shouting, talking over each other, and little accomplished. So why not turn to the internet?
Those who support and oppose the idea have taken the time to lay out their arguments. In an effort to portray both sides as fairly as possible, we have gathered 50 reasons to legalize/illegalize marijuana today. They include topics on medical and recreational use, with everyone from doctors to users to parents chiming in.
50 Reasons to Legalize/Illegalize Marijuana Today
Those who support and oppose the idea have taken the time to lay out their arguments. In an effort to portray both sides as fairly as possible, we have gathered 50 reasons to legalize/illegalize marijuana today. They include topics on medical and recreational use, with everyone from doctors to users to parents chiming in.
50 Reasons to Legalize/Illegalize Marijuana Today
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Issaquah in shock after Lake Sammamish shootings
KOMO-TV STAFF
Residents of the normally quiet city of Issaquah were in a state of shock a day after gunfire broke out in Lake Sammamish State Park, leaving two men dead and four injured.
"It scares me because I thought Issaquah was a safe town," said resident Emily Miller. "This is the first time I've ever heard of anything like this happening in Issaquah."
Miller said she would "think twice about going to Lake Sammamish State Park again."
"I moved to the east side because I thought it was a safe neighborhood, but now I'm not sure after the shootings," she added.
She wasn't the only one who was troubled by the explosion of violence that came without warning on a classically beautiful Northwest evening.
"It was a beautiful, nice, sunny day -- everybody was celebrating and having a good time -- and then all of a sudden, chaos -- absolute chaos," said one woman who witnessed the shootings. "It's just heartbreaking to know that can happen -- just like that, in the blink of an eye."
Riley Hilliker, who was also at the park during the shootings, said he was "extremely shocked that this would happen at Lake Sammamish State Park.
"You would never think that this would happen here," he said. "It's such a nice place -- gang violence at a state park -- it's shocking."
Another man who was at the park during the shootings said it's "crazy" that shootings would break out out a state park -- or anywhere for that matter.
"This type of violence is uncalled for anywhere in our nation," he said. "We shouldn't have this happen here in America at all, basically. We need to get a handle on gun control and stop these things from happening."
Residents of the normally quiet city of Issaquah were in a state of shock a day after gunfire broke out in Lake Sammamish State Park, leaving two men dead and four injured.
"It scares me because I thought Issaquah was a safe town," said resident Emily Miller. "This is the first time I've ever heard of anything like this happening in Issaquah."
Miller said she would "think twice about going to Lake Sammamish State Park again."
"I moved to the east side because I thought it was a safe neighborhood, but now I'm not sure after the shootings," she added.
She wasn't the only one who was troubled by the explosion of violence that came without warning on a classically beautiful Northwest evening.
"It was a beautiful, nice, sunny day -- everybody was celebrating and having a good time -- and then all of a sudden, chaos -- absolute chaos," said one woman who witnessed the shootings. "It's just heartbreaking to know that can happen -- just like that, in the blink of an eye."
Riley Hilliker, who was also at the park during the shootings, said he was "extremely shocked that this would happen at Lake Sammamish State Park.
"You would never think that this would happen here," he said. "It's such a nice place -- gang violence at a state park -- it's shocking."
Another man who was at the park during the shootings said it's "crazy" that shootings would break out out a state park -- or anywhere for that matter.
"This type of violence is uncalled for anywhere in our nation," he said. "We shouldn't have this happen here in America at all, basically. We need to get a handle on gun control and stop these things from happening."
Friday, July 9, 2010
Washington: Proposed Marijuana Legalization Initiative Will Not Qualify For 2010 Ballot
July 8, 2010 - Seattle, WA, USA
Seattle, WA: A statewide ballot measure that sought to remove all state penalties for the possession, cultivation, use, and sale of marijuana by those over eighteen years of age will not qualify for the November 2010 ballot, the measure's proponents have told the Associated Press.
Backers of the volunteer effort said that they collected approximately 200,000 signatures from registered voters in favor of the proposal, known as Initiative 1068. State law requires proponents to collect some 241,000 signatures to qualify for the statewide ballot.
According to a May 2010 University of Washington poll, 52 percent of the state's registered voters said that they supported the measure, and only 35 percent opposed it.
For more information, please visit: http://sensiblewashington.org.
updated: Jul 08, 2010
Seattle, WA: A statewide ballot measure that sought to remove all state penalties for the possession, cultivation, use, and sale of marijuana by those over eighteen years of age will not qualify for the November 2010 ballot, the measure's proponents have told the Associated Press.
Backers of the volunteer effort said that they collected approximately 200,000 signatures from registered voters in favor of the proposal, known as Initiative 1068. State law requires proponents to collect some 241,000 signatures to qualify for the statewide ballot.
According to a May 2010 University of Washington poll, 52 percent of the state's registered voters said that they supported the measure, and only 35 percent opposed it.
For more information, please visit: http://sensiblewashington.org.
updated: Jul 08, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Troopers issue nearly 700 citations for using cell, texting while driving
By RENTON REPORTER
State troopers have issued nearly 670 citations for cell phone or texting violations since June 10, when holding a cell phone became a primary traffic offense.
At $124 a violation, that's about $83,000 in fines.
The count runs through Thursday, July 1.
The State Patrol district that includes King County leads with the biggest number of stops, 235, and the biggest number of citations, 142.
Texting is a bigger problem in Western Washington than east of the Cascades. On the west side there were 30 citations for texting while driving and only four on the east side.
The bulk of the citations were for cell-phone use.
Even State Patrol Chief John Batiste cited a driver near Joint Base Lewis McChord in Tacoma for talking on his cell phone.
“The fellow was just driving along talking on his phone,” Batiste said in a press release. “He was fully aware of the law and had no excuses.”
Batiste believes compliance has increased since the violation became a primary offense, and that’s making things easier for troopers.
“Those who continue to flout the law are now much easier to spot,” Batiste said.
On June 10, the state’s previous law on cell phones and texting moved from a secondary offense to a primary one. That means officers no longer need some other reason to stop a driver they see texting or holding a cell phone to their ear.
One unique aspect of this law is that the State Patrol did not give a formal grace period, as it typically does with new laws. Because the basic behavior has already been illegal for two years, troopers were told to enforce the new law in exactly the same way as every other violation, according to the press release.
Troopers always have discretion to issue warnings and many did. Along with the more than 670 citations, nearly 500 warnings were issued. That is consistent with the ratio of warnings to citations given for other traffic violations, according to the press release.
During the same period in 2009, only about 110 cell phone and texting citations were issued by the State Patrol. Between 2006 and 2008 in Washington more than 3,000 drivers were involved in collisions while using hand-held wireless devices.
State troopers have issued nearly 670 citations for cell phone or texting violations since June 10, when holding a cell phone became a primary traffic offense.
At $124 a violation, that's about $83,000 in fines.
The count runs through Thursday, July 1.
The State Patrol district that includes King County leads with the biggest number of stops, 235, and the biggest number of citations, 142.
Texting is a bigger problem in Western Washington than east of the Cascades. On the west side there were 30 citations for texting while driving and only four on the east side.
The bulk of the citations were for cell-phone use.
Even State Patrol Chief John Batiste cited a driver near Joint Base Lewis McChord in Tacoma for talking on his cell phone.
“The fellow was just driving along talking on his phone,” Batiste said in a press release. “He was fully aware of the law and had no excuses.”
Batiste believes compliance has increased since the violation became a primary offense, and that’s making things easier for troopers.
“Those who continue to flout the law are now much easier to spot,” Batiste said.
On June 10, the state’s previous law on cell phones and texting moved from a secondary offense to a primary one. That means officers no longer need some other reason to stop a driver they see texting or holding a cell phone to their ear.
One unique aspect of this law is that the State Patrol did not give a formal grace period, as it typically does with new laws. Because the basic behavior has already been illegal for two years, troopers were told to enforce the new law in exactly the same way as every other violation, according to the press release.
Troopers always have discretion to issue warnings and many did. Along with the more than 670 citations, nearly 500 warnings were issued. That is consistent with the ratio of warnings to citations given for other traffic violations, according to the press release.
During the same period in 2009, only about 110 cell phone and texting citations were issued by the State Patrol. Between 2006 and 2008 in Washington more than 3,000 drivers were involved in collisions while using hand-held wireless devices.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Schene: Teen provoked me, called my wife a prostitute
By JOHN DISCEPOLO and KOMO-TV STAFF
The former King County Sheriff's deputy on his second trial for assault says his alleged victim is to blame for his behavior.
Paul Schene has been charged with fourth-degree assault in the beating of a 15-year-old girl in a holding cell in November 2009.
On the witness stand on Monday, Schene said the victim, Malika Calhoun, assaulted him by kicking off her shoe at him. That shoe was entered as evidence on Monday as Schene told the jury the teen was trying to provoke him with her belligerent behavior.
"She referred to my wife as a prostitute, and said that she had seen my wife out on Pacific Highway," he told the jury. "It seemed like she was trying to piss us off, upset us and antagonize us."
However, Calhoun alleged the opposite when she took the stand last week. The teen admitted she insulted the then-deputy in the minutes before the jail cell attack caught on tape, but said she was only responding to the insults he'd thrown at her.
"He said, 'Well, you're working on the streets. You can work for it' -- (he was implying) that I was a prostitute," she said.
Schene had stopped Calhoun and her friend in a stolen car taken from the woman she lived with at the time. What happened next as Schene put Calhoun in the holding cell has been at the center of a months-long controversy.
Surveillance video captured the attack against Calhoun, who was 15 at the time. The footage shows Schene rush in, kick the girl, force her against a wall, then throw her to the ground. He is also seen punching her twice.
Last week, the prosecutor said Schene later downplayed the incident when he completed the mandatory use-of-force report for his supervisor: "She kicked one of her shoes off, hitting me in the right shin leg, causing me injury and pain. I placed Calhoun in handcuffs, and placed her back on a bench."
Schene said he rushed into the cell when he saw Calhoun kick a shoe toward his groin, and appeared ready to flick the other one.
In court last week, Calhoun admitted she'd aimed her shoe at the then-deputy, because she was mad at Schene over the way he was talking to her.
King County Sheriff Sue Rahr fired Schene last year for multiple violations of department policy, including excessive force.
Schene's first assault trial ended with a hung jury.
Closing arguments will be presented on Tuesday.
Comment on this story at KOMO.
The former King County Sheriff's deputy on his second trial for assault says his alleged victim is to blame for his behavior.
Paul Schene has been charged with fourth-degree assault in the beating of a 15-year-old girl in a holding cell in November 2009.
On the witness stand on Monday, Schene said the victim, Malika Calhoun, assaulted him by kicking off her shoe at him. That shoe was entered as evidence on Monday as Schene told the jury the teen was trying to provoke him with her belligerent behavior.
"She referred to my wife as a prostitute, and said that she had seen my wife out on Pacific Highway," he told the jury. "It seemed like she was trying to piss us off, upset us and antagonize us."
However, Calhoun alleged the opposite when she took the stand last week. The teen admitted she insulted the then-deputy in the minutes before the jail cell attack caught on tape, but said she was only responding to the insults he'd thrown at her.
"He said, 'Well, you're working on the streets. You can work for it' -- (he was implying) that I was a prostitute," she said.
Schene had stopped Calhoun and her friend in a stolen car taken from the woman she lived with at the time. What happened next as Schene put Calhoun in the holding cell has been at the center of a months-long controversy.
Surveillance video captured the attack against Calhoun, who was 15 at the time. The footage shows Schene rush in, kick the girl, force her against a wall, then throw her to the ground. He is also seen punching her twice.
Last week, the prosecutor said Schene later downplayed the incident when he completed the mandatory use-of-force report for his supervisor: "She kicked one of her shoes off, hitting me in the right shin leg, causing me injury and pain. I placed Calhoun in handcuffs, and placed her back on a bench."
Schene said he rushed into the cell when he saw Calhoun kick a shoe toward his groin, and appeared ready to flick the other one.
In court last week, Calhoun admitted she'd aimed her shoe at the then-deputy, because she was mad at Schene over the way he was talking to her.
King County Sheriff Sue Rahr fired Schene last year for multiple violations of department policy, including excessive force.
Schene's first assault trial ended with a hung jury.
Closing arguments will be presented on Tuesday.
Comment on this story at KOMO.
Monday, June 21, 2010
More Belltown violence: Man shot in neck
KOMO-TV STAFF
One man is hospitalized with gunshot wounds to the neck and two other men are under arrest following a drive-by shooting early Sunday in Belltown.
The shooting was the third violent incident in Belltown this weekend.
Officers responded to the scene, in the 500 block of Wall Street, at about 3:30 a.m. after receiving a 911 call about shots fired.
When officers arrived they found a man lying on the ground in front of the building. He had been shot in the neck, just below the jaw, and was rushed to Harborview Medical Center.
An investigation found that the victim and friends had been at a club in the 300 block of First Avenue North.
When they left the club, they noticed a white Camaro following them. The victim and friends were standing out in front of a building when the Camaro drove by and someone from the car fired several shots, police said.
A witness called 911 and gave a good description of the car. An officer waited by the Howell Street on-ramp to Interstate 5 and spotted the Camaro as it pulled onto the freeway.
The officer followed the Camaro as it headed south on I-5 and drove onto the collector-distributor lanes. The car was eventually stopped near South Dearborn Street.
The two occupants were taken into custody without incident. Two witnesses to the shooting positively identified the vehicle.
Officers then backtracked the route of the white Camaro and found a pistol on the roadway that is believed to be the one used in the shooting.
The suspects were booked into King County Jail for investigation of assault. Police say they believe the victim was the intended target of the gunmen.
In the other Belltown incidents this weekend:
• On Friday night, an apartment manager was stabbed in the arm on Friday night as he tried to remove a group of people from the building.
• On Sunday morning at 2:40 a.m. a man was assaulted by four other men when he confronted them about making "cat-calls" at his girlfriend.
• Also, on June 6, a man was shot dead and another was critically injured outside the V Club in Belltown in a shooting that was caught on home video.
One man is hospitalized with gunshot wounds to the neck and two other men are under arrest following a drive-by shooting early Sunday in Belltown.
The shooting was the third violent incident in Belltown this weekend.
Officers responded to the scene, in the 500 block of Wall Street, at about 3:30 a.m. after receiving a 911 call about shots fired.
When officers arrived they found a man lying on the ground in front of the building. He had been shot in the neck, just below the jaw, and was rushed to Harborview Medical Center.
An investigation found that the victim and friends had been at a club in the 300 block of First Avenue North.
When they left the club, they noticed a white Camaro following them. The victim and friends were standing out in front of a building when the Camaro drove by and someone from the car fired several shots, police said.
A witness called 911 and gave a good description of the car. An officer waited by the Howell Street on-ramp to Interstate 5 and spotted the Camaro as it pulled onto the freeway.
The officer followed the Camaro as it headed south on I-5 and drove onto the collector-distributor lanes. The car was eventually stopped near South Dearborn Street.
The two occupants were taken into custody without incident. Two witnesses to the shooting positively identified the vehicle.
Officers then backtracked the route of the white Camaro and found a pistol on the roadway that is believed to be the one used in the shooting.
The suspects were booked into King County Jail for investigation of assault. Police say they believe the victim was the intended target of the gunmen.
In the other Belltown incidents this weekend:
• On Friday night, an apartment manager was stabbed in the arm on Friday night as he tried to remove a group of people from the building.
• On Sunday morning at 2:40 a.m. a man was assaulted by four other men when he confronted them about making "cat-calls" at his girlfriend.
• Also, on June 6, a man was shot dead and another was critically injured outside the V Club in Belltown in a shooting that was caught on home video.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Teen girl arrested for armed robbery KOMO-TV STAFF
KOMO-TV STAFF
A teenage girl was arrested Friday afternoon after she and two others robbed a boy of $20 at gunpoint, but the other suspects are still at large.
Seattle police were called to an apartment complex at Rainier and Fontanelle a little before 4 p.m. on a report of an armed robbery. The victim told officers that he was walking through the complex when three people, a male and two females, approached him. He said the male grabbed him and demanded, "give me something", while one of the females displayed a handgun.
The victim gave the male $20, after which he was let go. He then ran home and called 911 to report the incident.
Soon after, officers spotted a teen girl at Rainier and Myrtle who matched the description given by the victim. She was contacted and arrested without incident. The handgun, which was discovered to be an airsoft pellet gun, was also recovered in the arrest. She was taken to the Youth Service Center.
A search of the area failed to turn up the other two suspects.
A teenage girl was arrested Friday afternoon after she and two others robbed a boy of $20 at gunpoint, but the other suspects are still at large.
Seattle police were called to an apartment complex at Rainier and Fontanelle a little before 4 p.m. on a report of an armed robbery. The victim told officers that he was walking through the complex when three people, a male and two females, approached him. He said the male grabbed him and demanded, "give me something", while one of the females displayed a handgun.
The victim gave the male $20, after which he was let go. He then ran home and called 911 to report the incident.
Soon after, officers spotted a teen girl at Rainier and Myrtle who matched the description given by the victim. She was contacted and arrested without incident. The handgun, which was discovered to be an airsoft pellet gun, was also recovered in the arrest. She was taken to the Youth Service Center.
A search of the area failed to turn up the other two suspects.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Felon charged in fatal shooting of 12-year-old boy in Skyway
A felon who police say fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in Skyway after mistaking him for someone else was charged with first-degree murder Thursday.
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
A felon who police say fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in Skyway after mistaking him for someone else was charged Thursday with first-degree murder.
Curtis Walker, 35, was arrested last month after King County sheriff's investigators told the state Department of Corrections that the man might have a firearm in his possession. Walker, who was on probation and forbidden from having firearms, was arrested at his Des Moines home on May 14, according to Chad Lewis, spokesman for the Department of Corrections (DOC).
The Prosecutor's Office held a news conference Thursday morning to announce the murder charge.
Alajawan Brown had just gotten off a Metro bus on April 29 and was walking in the parking lot of the Cedar Village Apartments, 6230 S. 129th St., when he was struck by gunfire. The boy ran to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he died.
Authorities said Walker mistakenly believed Alajawan was someone he had a dispute with when he opened fire in the parking lot. Authorities say that a total of 20 gunshots were fired, striking Alajawan and an unidentified man.
That man was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and survived.
It's unclear who shot that man.
According to court records, Walker was convicted in June 2006 of fourth-degree assault, harassment, drug possession and illegal possession of a firearm. According to a Seattle police report, he told his girlfriend that he was "a contract killer" and then threatened to kill her because she knew too much.
Police had found a semi-automatic handgun and cocaine rocks in his sweatpants pocket, prosecutors said. Officers also found marijuana in a pocket of his vest, charging papers said.
Walker pleaded guilty and was given a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA), in which a portion of his prison sentence was suspended so he could attend treatment. He was also ordered to serve probation.
Walker also has four prior convictions for assault, as well as convictions for drug possession, malicious mischief, reckless endangerment, harassment, obstruction, trespassing and violation of a protection order, according to charging documents filed in King County Superior Court.
Walker was arrested by the DOC last month for violating the terms of his probation, Lewis said. Probation officers confronted the man at his home after King County sheriff's deputies notified corrections officials that they had seen him on some sort of video with a gun, Lewis said.
Since May, Walker has been held at the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton and was sentenced by the DOC to remain behind bars until Sept. 4.
During a prayer vigil on May 5, Louketa Brown, one of Alajawan's six siblings, and other family members described the victim as a boy who loved family, drumming and playing football with his Renton Area Athletic Association football team, the Renton Rangers. He was returning home after buying football cleats when he was killed.
Information from Seattle Times archives is included in this report.
Jennifer Sullivan: 206-464-8294 or jensullivan@seattletimes.com
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
A felon who police say fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in Skyway after mistaking him for someone else was charged Thursday with first-degree murder.
Curtis Walker, 35, was arrested last month after King County sheriff's investigators told the state Department of Corrections that the man might have a firearm in his possession. Walker, who was on probation and forbidden from having firearms, was arrested at his Des Moines home on May 14, according to Chad Lewis, spokesman for the Department of Corrections (DOC).
The Prosecutor's Office held a news conference Thursday morning to announce the murder charge.
Alajawan Brown had just gotten off a Metro bus on April 29 and was walking in the parking lot of the Cedar Village Apartments, 6230 S. 129th St., when he was struck by gunfire. The boy ran to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he died.
Authorities said Walker mistakenly believed Alajawan was someone he had a dispute with when he opened fire in the parking lot. Authorities say that a total of 20 gunshots were fired, striking Alajawan and an unidentified man.
That man was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and survived.
It's unclear who shot that man.
According to court records, Walker was convicted in June 2006 of fourth-degree assault, harassment, drug possession and illegal possession of a firearm. According to a Seattle police report, he told his girlfriend that he was "a contract killer" and then threatened to kill her because she knew too much.
Police had found a semi-automatic handgun and cocaine rocks in his sweatpants pocket, prosecutors said. Officers also found marijuana in a pocket of his vest, charging papers said.
Walker pleaded guilty and was given a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA), in which a portion of his prison sentence was suspended so he could attend treatment. He was also ordered to serve probation.
Walker also has four prior convictions for assault, as well as convictions for drug possession, malicious mischief, reckless endangerment, harassment, obstruction, trespassing and violation of a protection order, according to charging documents filed in King County Superior Court.
Walker was arrested by the DOC last month for violating the terms of his probation, Lewis said. Probation officers confronted the man at his home after King County sheriff's deputies notified corrections officials that they had seen him on some sort of video with a gun, Lewis said.
Since May, Walker has been held at the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton and was sentenced by the DOC to remain behind bars until Sept. 4.
During a prayer vigil on May 5, Louketa Brown, one of Alajawan's six siblings, and other family members described the victim as a boy who loved family, drumming and playing football with his Renton Area Athletic Association football team, the Renton Rangers. He was returning home after buying football cleats when he was killed.
Information from Seattle Times archives is included in this report.
Jennifer Sullivan: 206-464-8294 or jensullivan@seattletimes.com
Bellevue Police nab axe-wielding man who smashed collection agency
By BELLEVUE REPORTER
Bellevue police last night arrested the man who allegedly smashed the front door of a local collection agency with an axe Tuesday morning.
Police responded to multiple 911 calls about the incident around 9:30 a.m. and began searching for the suspect with help from a K9 team and a King County Sheriff's helicopter.
A receptionist at the collection agency, located in an office park on the 1400 block of 114th Ave. SE, saw the man hitting the door and side glass panes. Shards of glass flew across the room and hit her.
The suspect returned to his workplace in Kent and told coworkers what he had done, police said. Employees at the aerospace-related company heard reports of the incident and called authorities.
Detectives arrested the man without incident. He confessed to the crime and showed officers the axe, which was in the bushes by his office, according to police.
The suspect also admitted to spray painting the word "shyster" on the street in front of the home of one of the collection agency's employees, police said.
Records indicate the man was upset about his wages being garnished, according to police. He is in King County Jail and will be charged later this week.
Bellevue police last night arrested the man who allegedly smashed the front door of a local collection agency with an axe Tuesday morning.
Police responded to multiple 911 calls about the incident around 9:30 a.m. and began searching for the suspect with help from a K9 team and a King County Sheriff's helicopter.
A receptionist at the collection agency, located in an office park on the 1400 block of 114th Ave. SE, saw the man hitting the door and side glass panes. Shards of glass flew across the room and hit her.
The suspect returned to his workplace in Kent and told coworkers what he had done, police said. Employees at the aerospace-related company heard reports of the incident and called authorities.
Detectives arrested the man without incident. He confessed to the crime and showed officers the axe, which was in the bushes by his office, according to police.
The suspect also admitted to spray painting the word "shyster" on the street in front of the home of one of the collection agency's employees, police said.
Records indicate the man was upset about his wages being garnished, according to police. He is in King County Jail and will be charged later this week.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Suspected squatter of $3.2 million Kirkland home arrested for criminal trespass
By CARRIE WOOD
KIRKLAND REPORTER
Kirkland Police have arrested a 30-year-old woman suspected of squatting in a $3.2 million waterfront home in Kirkland.
The woman was arrested at the home, located at 435 Eighth Ave. West, and booked in the City of Kirkland jail Tuesday.
The house located in the Market neighborhood, was at the center of a dispute between the woman, a Bellevue real estate agent and the bank.
The woman, who moved into the home more than a week ago, told police and neighbors that she owned the home. The women showed police false documents when they came to the house to investigate on June 6, said Kirkland Detective Allan O’Neill.
A thorough investigation of tax logs, utility bills and asset records revealed that First Citizens Bank is the lawful owner of the home. The bank served the woman an eviction notice last week and on Tuesday, Kirkland Police arrived at the residence with bank officials to assist in returning the home back over to the bank.
When police arrived, the woman was not in the house, but she arrived shortly after and was arrested for criminal trespass and booked into jail.
The Reporter will update this story as more details become available.
KIRKLAND REPORTER
Kirkland Police have arrested a 30-year-old woman suspected of squatting in a $3.2 million waterfront home in Kirkland.
The woman was arrested at the home, located at 435 Eighth Ave. West, and booked in the City of Kirkland jail Tuesday.
The house located in the Market neighborhood, was at the center of a dispute between the woman, a Bellevue real estate agent and the bank.
The woman, who moved into the home more than a week ago, told police and neighbors that she owned the home. The women showed police false documents when they came to the house to investigate on June 6, said Kirkland Detective Allan O’Neill.
A thorough investigation of tax logs, utility bills and asset records revealed that First Citizens Bank is the lawful owner of the home. The bank served the woman an eviction notice last week and on Tuesday, Kirkland Police arrived at the residence with bank officials to assist in returning the home back over to the bank.
When police arrived, the woman was not in the house, but she arrived shortly after and was arrested for criminal trespass and booked into jail.
The Reporter will update this story as more details become available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)