New cases accepted for review
The Supreme Court agreed to review several new cases, reviewing issues such as the suppression of breath test results and whether a person has a constitutional right to honk her horn at a neighbor.
- State v. Mitchell, No. 83169-6
- State v. Ervin, No. 83244-7
- State v. O’Connor, No. 83261-7
- City of Seattle v. Jacob, No. 83277-3
- Curtis v. Lein, No. 83307-9
- State v. Ish, No. 83308-7
- State v. Immelt, No. 83343-5
- State v. Meneses, No. 83172-6
State v. Mitchell, No. 83169-6. Defendant Marilea Mitchell and her boyfriend were convicted of the crime of criminal mistreatment for starving a young, undernourished boy who lived with them. The boy’s father, Danny Abegg, assumed custody of the boy after his mother, a drug addict, failed to properly care for him. Defendant Mitchell lived with Abegg at the time and also cared for the boy. The couple was reported to Child Protective Services after Mitchell’s sister discovered the boy was severely malnourished. After a trial and conviction, the court imposed an exceptional sentence on Mitchell of 96 months, in part because of a finding that the victim was especially vulnerable. Mitchell appealed. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that evidence at trial was sufficient to show that the victim was dependent on Mitchell because of his physical or mental disability, and the record supported a conclusion that the victim was particularly vulnerable, justifying the exceptional sentence. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue of whether the victim was actually dependent on Mitchell.
State v. Ervin, No. 83244-7. Defendant James Ervin was convicted of a felony violation of a no contact order, and sentenced using an offender score reflecting two prior felonies (second degree possession of stolen property and first degree rendering criminal assistance). He appealed, alleging that his two prior felonies had washed out, and that he had committed no crime in the prior five years, making him eligible for the wash out provision. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that time spent in confinement for violating misdemeanor probation was not time spent “in the community” for purposes of Sentencing Reform Act’s wash-out provisions.
State v. O’Connor, No. 83261-7. Andrew O’Connor appealed his conviction of possessing methamphetamine, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence found in the truck he was driving. O’Connor was stopped by police who had a warrant for his passenger. In the process of searching the vehicle and O’Connor the police discovered meth in his possession. At trial the defense moved unsuccessfully to suppress the evidence found on his person as the non-arrested driver. The Supreme Court grants review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant.
City of Seattle v. Jacob, No. 83277-3. The City of Seattle sought review of a municipal court’s suppression of breath test results for defendants charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). A Superior Court denied this writ. The City then appealed to the Court of Appeals (Div. 1). The court held that suppression of evidence was not an available remedy, and the defendant was not prejudiced by a toxicology laboratory manager’s falsification of simulator solution certificates. The court reversed the Superior Court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
Curtis v. Lein, No. 83307-9. A tenant, Tambra Curtis, was injured after falling through a wooden dock on the property of Jack and Claire Lein in Sammamish. The trial court ruled in favor of the property owners, saying that Curtis failed to prove that the Leins knew or should have known about the dock’s allegedly dangerous condition, and that causes other than the Leins’ negligence could have contributed to the dock’s failure. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) agreed.
State v. Ish, No. 83308-7. Defendant Nathaniel Ish was convicted in Superior Court of second degree felony murder for the beating-death of his girlfriend, Katy Hall. The defendant raised several issues on appeal, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) found no reversible error and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court has granted review on the vouching issue: whether the prosecutor improperly vouched for an informant’s credibility when she elicited that his plea agreement required him to testify truthfully and could be revoked if he breached it.
State v. Immelt, No. 83343-5. During a neighborhood feud over whether she could keep chickens in her backyard, Helen Immelt parked her car in front of a neighbor’s house at 5:50 a.m. and honked her horn for approximately 10 minutes. Immelt was convicted in the Snohomish Superior Court of violating a county noise ordinance. She appealed, contending that the noise ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and interfered with her free speech rights. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that defendant’s honking was not speech protect by First Amendment, and the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague.
State v. Meneses, No. 83172-6. Andre Toi Meneses repeatedly called Jamila Willis, his former girlfriend and the primary custodial parent of their 7-year-old son, in the spring of 2007, using vile language, slurs, and threats of violence. He was found guilty of four counts of felony telephone harassment, four counts of misdemeanor telephone harassment, and two counts of intimidating a witness. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court has agreed to review three issues: double jeopardy, jury instructions on intent, and jury instructions on lesser included offenses.
