In a 5-4 decision, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a Thurston County jury’s award of over $57 million to live-in individual care providers (“providers”). Eight of the nine justices agreed to overturn an additional $39 million in prejudgment interest the providers also received at trial. All of the justices agreed that the recipients of the providers’ care (“clients”) were not entitled to recover damages, though for different reasons.
Continue Reading State Supreme Court Upholds $57 Million Verdict for In-Home Care Providers

In a case that emerged from tragic facts of a dogs killing weaker members of their pack and maiming a neighbor’s pet, the Washington Supreme Court issued two significant rulings concerning criminal sentencing last week. First, it unanimously ruled in State v. Deskins that district courts have broad discretion to impose conditions of probation. Second, in a 5-4 ruling, it clarified that evidentiary rules concerning hearsay do not apply to evidence of restitution amounts offered at sentencing hearings.

BACKGROUND

Pamela Deskins kept approximately 40 dogs in a fenced area on her property. These dogs were vicious toward one another, with some mauling and killing other members of the pack. They attacked and killed livestock on the property. And despite the fence, some attacked a pet dog off the property, inflicting serious injuries. The local sheriff later seized the remaining dogs, placing them in the custody of a local animal rescue.

Deskins was later found guilty of confining animals in an unsafe manner (a misdemeanor), among other charges. Twenty-two minutes after the jury rendered its verdict, the District Court commenced a sentencing hearing, denying Deskins’ request for a one-week continuance. Prepared for sentencing, the State presented statements from individuals who witnessed the dog attacks, the owners of the injured pet, and evidence of the State’s costs of caring for the seized dogs. The District Court sentenced Deskins to two years of probation (as well as a period of confinement), ordered her to pay restitution, and imposed two conditions on her probation: (1) it prohibited her from owning or living animals during her probation; and (2) it ordered to forfeit any remaining animals to the local sheriff, after allowing Deskins seven days to find any remaining animals new homes.

After both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals reversed certain aspects of the District Court’s rulings, the Washington Supreme Court granted review of the two probation conditions and whether the short period between trial and sentencing and the resulting restitution order violated due process.Continue Reading District Courts Have Broad Discretion In Setting Probation Conditions: Wash. C. Ct.

In State v. Owens, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the statute establishing the crime of first degree trafficking in stolen property as establishing only two ways of committing the crime: stealing property for sale to others or trafficking stolen property.  In the case before the court, the jury verdict was deemed proper because there was sufficient evidence to prove that Owens both stole and trafficked the car.


Continue Reading The Legislature May Keep Its Thesauruses: Each Synonym in a Criminal Statute Is Not a Separate Means of Committing a Crime

by Kiran Griffith

In W.G. Clark Construction Company, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed a trial court’s ruling that ERISA preempted state laws designed to ensure that workers on public projects are paid. In doing so, the Court unanimously overturned the state’s precedent on the matter, to join what the Court found to be…

A six-Justice majority of the Washington Supreme Court ruled in State v. Dobbs (No. 87472-7) that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser by causing her (through violence and threats) to protect herself by refusing to testify at trial. Three Justices dissented, largely because they viewed the evidence differently and did not see clear, convincing, and cogent evidence (as required to establish forfeiture) that the defendant’s conduct caused the absence of the witness at trial.

Background:

The jury in Dobbs found Dobbs guilty of numerous crimes of domestic violence against C.R., including stalking, felony harassment, intimidating a witness, and drive-by shooting. The question presented on appeal was a narrow one: whether the trial court proceedings violated Dobbs’ Sixth Amendment rights because C.R. did not appear as a witness at trial.Continue Reading The Sixth Amendment Guarantees Criminal Defendants A Right To Confront The Witnesses Against Them, But Not If The Defendant Intentionally Causes The Absence Of A Witness At Trial

In State v. MacDicken, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that police did not violate Abraham MacDicken’s federal or state constitutional rights by searching a laptop bag and rolling duffle bag without a warrant after he was arrested. The Court held that the bags were immediately associated with MacDicken at the time of his arrest and therefore properly included in the search incident to arrest of MacDicken’s person. In so holding, the Court extended its recent decision in State v. Byrd to reach beyond hand carry items like a purse or laptop bag to rolling luggage.  Therefore, police in Washington do not need a warrant to search anything an arrested person was moving with his or her own strength at the time of arrest.
Continue Reading You Are Your Luggage: Court Okays Warantless Searches of all Bags at Time of Arrest

From our colleague, Daniel Lee:

In PT Air Watchers v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously upheld Ecology’s decision not to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for an energy cogeneration project. The project, proposed by the Port Townsend Paper Corporation, would increase…

Under ER 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show conformity with those acts.  In 2008, the Legislature carved out an exception to ER 404(b) by passing a bill that allowed evidence of prior sex crimes to be admitted in criminal sex cases.  But in 2012, the Washington Supreme Court held that this statute was unconstitutional.

Gower involves a bench trial that took place in 2009, after the Legislature’s ER 404(b) exception was in effect, but before it was held unconstitutional.  The State had charged Gower with a series of sex crimes relating to sexual contact with his minor step-daughter, SEH.  At trial, the State sought to admit the testimony of one of Gower’s other minor children, CM, and the trial court admitted CM’s testimony, stating that the evidence would have been inadmissible under ER 404(b), but was admissible under the statutory exception.  SEH also testified to her own experience at the hands of Gower.
Continue Reading State v. Gower: Anything is Reasonably Probable

In State v. Garcia, Jr., No. 88020-4, the State Supreme Court unanimously reversed the defendant’s first degree kidnapping and second-degree kidnapping convictions and remanded for a new trial of those convictions, but affirmed the defendant’s criminal trespass conviction.

The defendant, Phillip Garcia, Jr., believed he was involved in a car chase after hearing gun shots coming from other vehicles on a highway.  Garcia eventually abandoned his vehicle and ran to a gas station to seek help.  Upon learning the gas station was closed, Garcia broke into the gas station with a cinder block, but fled after hearing he triggered the station’s alarm.  Garcia then went to homes nearby, and ended up at the home where the victim was asleep.  Garcia entered the home through an unlocked door, then spoke with and remained with the victim for two hours before one of Garcia’s friends picked him up.

The State charged Garcia with first degree kidnapping based on his interactions with the victim, and first degree criminal trespass and burglary in the second degree for breaking into the gas station.  The State successfully excluded Garcia’s statements to the victim as hearsay, and also introduced a police report containing hearsay statements from Garcia’s previous burglary conviction.  A jury convicted Garcia of all three charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Garcia appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charge and that the trial court’s above evidentiary rulings were erroneous.
Continue Reading State v. Garcia, Jr. – Not Enough Evidence for First Degree Kidnapping Conviction

About the Notice of Appeal Blog

Learn More

Welcome to the Stoel Rives Appellate Law blog, dedicated to providing those in appellate law practices regular updates on significant decisions from courts of appeal within our regions of practice. It is our goal to build out this blog to be a handy resource for both keeping up to date on new decisions and quickly locating information about past decisions.