Tomorrow's opinions, April 15, 2010
The Supreme Court is scheduled to issue opinions in several cases tomorrow morning:
Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Association, No. 81873-8 (briefs and argument). Sandra Lake and Glen Clausing are neighbors at Woodcreek Condominiums. Clausing, with Woodcreek’s approval, built a “bonus room” over his garage. This converted common area (the airspace over the garage) into apartment area. It also interfered with Lake’s view. Lake sued Clausing and Woodcreek, claiming that the law requires unanimous consent by the condominium owners to convert common area to apartment. Woodcreek and Clausing argue that unanimous consent is only required if the condominium declaration is amended, which did not happen here.
Lawson v. City of Pasco, No. 81636-1 (briefs and argument). The question before the Court is whether the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act preempts a city’s ordinance banning the use of recreational vehicles as permanent homes in mobile home parks. Lawson owns a mobile home park in Pasco, and has at least one tenant who uses a fifth-wheel as a permanent home. Pasco has an ordinance preventing this use of a recreational vehicle, and ordered Lawson to evict all such tenants. Lawson defends on the basis that the Landlord-Tenant Act allows the use, and that the Act preempts the City’s ordinance.
Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, No. 81590-9 (briefs and argument). Alex Salas, a construction worker, fell off a scaffolding ladder and sued the company that set up the scaffold. At trial, the court allowed evidence that Salas is an undocumented alien. The jury did not find Hi-Tech Erectors liable for the injury. On appeal Salas argues the trial court abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence about Salas’ immigration status was irrelevant and prejudicial, but affirmed the lower court.
State v. Jones, No. 82613-7 (briefs and argument). Whether the rape shield statute bars testimony about contemporaneous sexual behavior for the purpose of proving consent. Kashauna Dixon claimed that she was raped by her uncle, Christopher Jones. Jones admitted to having sex with her, but claimed that she consented. According to Jones, they were having a party with several others that included alcohol, sex, and drugs.
Based on Washington’s rape shield statute, the trial court barred Jones from testifying about the party. Jones appealed, arguing that the statute only prohibits testimony about “past sexual behavior,” and that he wanted to testify about sexual behavior contemporaneous with the alleged rape. The Court of Appeals held that past behavior can refer even to the very recent past, and that even if the rape shield statute didn’t apply the evidence would have been inadmissible because it would have unduly prejudiced the jury against Dixon.
