Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

Guillen v. Contreras, No. 82531-9. This case addresses whether a party that has prevailed on some of the issues at trial is entitled to attorneys fees. In 2005, while investigating a drug-related shooting, the Sunnyside Police Department seized $9,342 in cash found on deceased Jesus Jaime Torres’s person, $57,990 in cash found in a package on a loveseat in the living room where the drug transaction occurred, and a 1997 BMW automobile that Mr. Torres drove to the transaction scene. Mr. Torres’s family filed a claim with the department for the return of the property. The Yakima County Superior Court ordered the return of the $9,342 and the 1997 BMW automobile to the family. The family then submitted a demand for attorney fees. The court denied attorney fees, noting the language of the statute permits the recovery of attorney fees “where the claimant substantially prevails.” RCW 69.50.505(6). The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) agreed. “Even giving a generous value to the automobile, the family recovered about $19,000 out of the nearly $77,000 they were seeking. … While they prevailed on the two smaller claims, they did not prevail on the most significant claim.”

Washington Trust Bank v. River Gorge, No. 82827-0. Russell Dan Reynolds, Marvin Chamberlain, and Dean Koesel formed two separate partnerships, which purchased, bred, and sold registered dairy cattle. The cattle from both partnerships lived at a dairy owned by Mr. Reynolds. For approximately three years, Mr. Reynolds purchased hay for the cattle from Jerry E. Hodges. Mr. Reynolds failed to pay for a majority of the hay delivered. Mr. Hodges assigned any claim related to the hay bill to Washington Trust Bank. Washington Trust Bank sued both partnerships, and the trial court ruled in its favor, finding the partnerships liable for the hay bill. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) affirmed under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Internet Cmty. & Entm’t Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State, No. 82845-8. Whether the Washington State Gambling Act (chapter 9.46 RCW) applies to an Internet gambling site. In 2007, Betcha.com was informed by agents of the Washington State Gambling Commission that the website was engaged in illegal professional gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at the trial level. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that because Betcha.com customers agreed in advance that participants were not required to pay their losses, Betcha.com was not engaged in “gambling” as defined in the Gambling Act.

State v. Doughty, No. 82852-1. Whether a police officer’s actions constituted unreasonable search and seizure under Fourth Amendment. The defendant appeals the trial court’s refusal to suppress drug evidence seized after he visited a drug house at 3:20 a.m. for a two-minute-long visit. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to suppress the evidence, concluding that the circumstances provided ample grounds for a Terry stop.

State v. Montano, No. 82855-5. While on patrol, Officer Darren Smith responded to an incident involving defendant Jose Montano. During questioning, Jose Montano became agitated and attempted to break free. Another officer, who had arrived during the investigation, applied a TASER. After Mr. Montano was subdued and handcuffed, he directed several threats toward Officer Smith. Mr. Montano was charged with fourth degree assault (domestic violence) and intimidating a public servant. The trial court dismissed the charge of intimidating a public servant, holding that the threats made did not necessarily show intent to influence a public servant’s actions. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) disagreed, reasoning that a jury could infer that Mr. Montano’s threats were designed to get the officer to change his course of action. The court ordered a trial on the dismissed charge.

In re Det. of Hawkins, No. 82907-1. While incarcerated for second degree rape, Jake Hawkins was evaluated by a psychologist who opined that the inmate suffered from paraphila, alcoholism, dysthymic disorder and personality disorder. The state, as part of its petition to involuntarily commit Mr. Hawkins as a sexually violent predator, sought an order compelling him to submit to a polygraph test. Based on the recommendation of the psychologist, the trial court issued an order compelling the inmate to submit to the polygraph test. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) ruled the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the polygraph test.

State v. Moeurn, No. 82995-1. Mr. Lauren Moeurn appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree assault with a deadly weapon enhancement. He argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the person who hit the victim; (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments deprived him of his right to a fair trial; and (3) the trial court miscalculated his offender score. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court accepted the petition for review only on the offender score issue.

James v. Momah, No. 82998-5. Petition for review granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to reinstate appeal.

State v. Linerud, No. 83022-3. Defendant Randy Linerud was convicted in the King County Superior Court of failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to a standard range sentence, which exceeded the statutory maximum, but which included a notation requiring the Department of Corrections (to calculate defendant’s sentence to ensure that it did not exceed the maximum. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that sentence was indeterminate, in violation of Sentencing Reform Act. The Supreme Court granted the state’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals in light of In re PRP of Brooks.