New cases accepted UPDATED
The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review several new cases.
- Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2
- State v. Afana, No. 82600-5
- State v. Osman, No. 82671-4
- State v. Hall, No. 82558-1
- State v. Jones, No. 82613-7
- State v. Patel, No. 82649-8
- McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5
Case details after the jump:
Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2. Mobile home tenants and association brought an action against the mobile home park, alleging that leases violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court ruled for the park. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling in part, and reversed in part, and remanded the caes for further proceedings.
State v. Afana, No. 82600-5. The question here is whether a police officer unconstitutionally seized a driver and passenger in a legally parked car when the officer approached and requested identification. Here, Deputy Miller approached Joseph Afana's car and asked Mr. Afana and his passenger, Jennifer Bergeron, what they were doing and requested identification. After Mr. Afana began to drive away, Deputy Miller discovered a warrant for Ms. Bergeron and stopped the car. A search incident to Ms. Bergeron's arrest uncovered illegal drugs. The trial court suppressed this evidence, concluding that Ms. Bergeron was unlawfully seized when Deputy Miller asked for identification. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) disagreed, ruling that the officer’s request for identification did not constitute a seizure. The appeals court reversed the suppression of the drug evidence.
State v. Osman, No. 82671-4. Abdinasir Osman was convicted in a jury trial of driving while under the influence of alcohol. In preparing Osman's appeal, his attorney discovered that a portion of the electronic record from the pretrial hearing was missing. Osman argued he was entitled to a new trial because of the missing portion of the record. The Superior Court ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) held the missing portion of the record was not so significant as to warrant a new trial.
State v. Hall, No. 82558-1. Whether convictions for tampering with a witness violate double jeopardy. Isiah Hall was initially charged with burglary and assault. The prosecution later amended the charging document to add several counts of tampering with a witness, when it was discovered that Hall attempted to convince his girlfriend to either refuse to testify or to testify falsely. Hall was convicted of several crimes including three counts of tampering with a witness. Hall appealed, arguing that multiple counts of tampering with a witness violated the double jeopardy clause. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the convictions, holding that the unit of prosecution for tampering with a witness is any one instance of attempting to induce a witness or a person to do any of the actions set forth in RCW 9A.72.120.
State v. Jones, No. 82613-7. Christopher Jones was convicted of the second degree rape of his niece, K.D. The trial court imposed an exceptional minimum term sentence based on a jury finding that Mr. Jones abused a position of trust to commit the offense. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) upheld the conviction, but reversed the exceptional minimum sentence because of errors on the jury instruction form. The court ordered a new sentencing proceeding.
State v. Patel, No. 82649-8. Mitel Patel challenged his conviction for attempted second degree rape of a child. On appeal, Mr. Patel contended that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress transcripts of his instant messaging conversations with an undercover detective posing as a fictitious 13-year-old girl, and (2) denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prove an essential element of the crime. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) affirmed Mr. Patel's conviction.
McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5. Whether attorneys fees can be recovered in addition to a settlement amount. In May 2005, Julianne McGuire hired Robert Bates, B & H Construction Services, Inc. to remodel her kitchen. Bates completed the work in September 2005. A few months later, McGuire noticed water stains and other problems resulting from the remodel. McGuire reported the defects to Bates who denied any responsibility after inspecting the property. McGuire hired another contractor who repaired the defects for $2,166.00. After the matter was transferred to mandatory arbitration, Bates offered in writing to settle “all claims” for $2,180.00 pursuant to RCW 4.84.250-.280. McGuire accepted. McGuire then moved for attorney fees, claiming she was entitled to such an award as the prevailing party under RCW 18.27.040. The arbitrator denied the motion, ruling that the parties' agreement to settle “all claims” necessarily included attorney fees. On appeal, the trial court ruled in McGuire’s favor, awarding her attorneys fees, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling.
