New cases before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Washington has agreed to review several new cases after its July 7 conference.
Cases of note include Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Attorney General (whether a federal law preempts the state Public Records Act), State v. Bainard (whether a defendant who shot his parents and allegedly burned down the home can be charged with first-degree arson), and State v. Hirschfelder (whether the law criminalizes sexual intercourse between a teacher and an 18-year-old student).
Case details after the jump.
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Attorney General, No. 82690-1. During litigation, Ameriquest Mortgage Company released a number of confidential customer loan files to the Washington State Attorney's General Office. The litigation ended in a settlement agreement. Subsequently, a Public Records Act request was filed with the Attorney General requesting those confidential files and the AGO's work product regarding the Ameriquest litigation. The Attorney General’s Office was prepared to produce the documents sought, and Ameriquest sought a preliminarily injunction enjoining the production of documents, arguing that (1) the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act preempted the state PRA and prohibited disclosure of information, and (2) the AG’s decision to produce their attorney work product was arbitrary and capricious. Thurston County Superior Court denied the injuction, and the Court of Appeals (Div. II) reversed in Ameriquest’s favor. The Supreme Court has agreed to review only the issue of federal preemption.
State v. Bainard, No. 82699-4. The State charged Nicolas Bainard with two counts of first degree murder arising from the deaths of his parents, Richard and Ella Bainard, and one count of first degree arson. After they died of gunshot wounds, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Bainard was burned with their bodies in it. Bainard was convicted in Chelan County Superior Court on two counts of second degree murder and was sentenced with firearm enhancements. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) held the defendant could not be sentenced under firearm enhancement, and also ruled that he did not commit first degree arson. Arson in the first degree requires proof of causing a fire in a building in which are “human beings” who did not participate in the crime. The trial court ruled that “human beings” means live persons, and because the Bainards were dead at the time of the fire, the trial court dismissed this charge. The appeals court agreed.
Overlake Hosp. v. Department of Health, No. 82728-1. The Department of Health promulgated rules for determining whether a need exists for additional ambulatory surgical facilities in Bellevue. The Department issued a certificate of need to Swedish Health Services to establish an ambulatory surgical facility with five operating rooms in Bellevue. Evergreen Healthcare and Overlake Hospital Medical Center filed an objection, alleging that there was no need for additional ambulatory surgical facilities in the area. The health law judge rejected Overlake's appeal, upholding the methodology employed by the Department. Overlake appealed, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) reversed, saying the Department’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
State v. Sanchez, No. 82731-1. Defendants in this consolidated case were convicted in the Clark County Superior Court of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The Court of Appeals (Div. II) affirmed the conviction, which the defendants appeal to the Supreme Court.
State v. Monday, No. 82736-2. Kevin Monday was convicted of one count of murder in the first degree and two counts of assault in the first degree, all with firearm enhancements. He appealed, arguing that the warrant affidavit recklessly omitted information, thereby undermining probable cause for his arrest and the search of his home; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney suggested, and the court gave, a jury instruction that misstated the law of self-defense; and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. He also claims his sentence was erroneously entered. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed his conviction, ruling that none of the claimed errors prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court has granted review on the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial and whether imposition of firearms enhancements voided the defendant’s jury trial rights.
State v. Hirschfelder, No. 82744-3. High school teacher Matthew Hirschfelder was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor. The defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with a student, but he moved to dismiss, arguing the student was 18 years old at the time of the incident. The Grays Harbor Superior Court denied the motion, and the Hirschfedler was granted discretionary review. The Court of Appeals (Div. II) reversed, holding that the statute is ambiguous but only criminalizes sexual contact between school employees and students aged 16 and 17. RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b). Because the student was 18 years of age, the defendant could not be charged with first-degree sexual misconduct. (Note: after the Court of Appeals issued its ruling, the Washington Legislature amended the criminal statute to encompass sex with students who are under 21 and 5 years younger than the school employee.)
Bellevue School District v. E.S., No. 83024-0. The Bellevue School District filed a truancy petition against a child. The King County Superior Court signed an order requiring child to attend school on a regular basis and subsequently found her in contempt and ruled that child had no right to counsel at the initial hearing. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Div. I) held that due process demands that child be represented in the initial truancy hearing.
State v. Loy, No. 81616-6. Review was granted and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of State v. Mendoza, 165 Wn.2d 913 (2009).
Humphrey Indus. LTD v. Clay St. Assocs. LLC, No. 82687-1. In this dissenter’s rights suit, the limited liability company (LLC) initially paid the dissenting member less than the fair value of its share. But the trial court found that the LLC had substantially complied with the statute, and assessed fees and costs against the dissenting member for acting arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed.
Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., No. 82812-1. The original or subsequent purchasers of newly-constructed homes brought claims against a builder-vendor for breach of implied warranty of habitability, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of Consumer Protect Act (CPA), relating to alleged construction defects. The Snohomish County Superior Court ruled for the defendant. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Supreme Court has granted review only on the homeowners’ issue of economic loss and assignment of warranty.
State v. Weaver, No. 80716-7. Granted only on offender score issue and remanded to the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of State v. Mendoza.
State v. Lucero, No. 81308-6. Granted only on offender score issue and remanded to the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of State v. Mendoza.
Congratulations to the Washington Coalition for Open Government on the Ameriquest case, in which they filed an amicus brief in favor of review.