Today's arguments - May 11, 2010
On the second argument day of the new session, the Court's docket includes cases on racism, teacher-student sex and the Public Records Act. The Justices will hear four cases, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
State v. Sanchez, No. 82731-1. This case concerns the constitutionality of a specific condition of community custody, and what showing of harm from the condition is required to make the case ripe for a constitutional challenge.
Isidoro Valencia and Eduardo Sanchez were convicted of drug crimes, and their sentences included "community custody." One condition of the community custody was a ban on possessing “any paraphernalia that can be used for the ingestion or processing of controlled substances or that can be used to facilitate the sale or transfer of controlled substances.”
Valencia and Sanchez appealed this condition as being unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals (Division Two) held that the appeal was not yet ripe because the defendants had not yet been harmed by the condition, and that they must wait to appeal until they are charged with violating the condition. Petitioners argue they are harmed by the hardship of complying with a vague condition.
State v. Monday, No. 82736-2. The Court will hear arguments regarding whether allegedly racist and disparaging comments made by the prosecutor prejudiced the jury, and whether a firearm enhancement can be imposed if "firearm" is not defined for the jury.
Kevin Monday was convicted of murder. During the trial, the prosecutor told the jury, “The code is black folk don't testify against black folk. You don't snitch to the police.” Monday claims this was racist. He also made other claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including the prosecutor improperly using the prestige of his office and making fun of witnesses' accents.
In addition, Monday claims that the imposition of a firearm enhancement (meaning the sentence was increased because a firearm was used in the crime) was improper because the court did not define “firearm” for the jury.
The Division One Court of Appeals held that if there were errors, they were not prejudicial.
Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)
Ameriquest Mortgage Co v. Washington Attorney General, No. 82690-1. This case presents the question of whether the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the state Public Records Act.
During an investigation by the Attorney General's Office, Ameriquest Mortgage Company turned a number of documents over to the AGO, including many consumer loan files. A public records request was filed for the documents, and Ameriquest sued the AGO to keep the files secret.
Division Two Court of Appeals held that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the PRA, preventing disclosure of the loan files. The AGO argues that the statutes are not in conflict, and thus there is no preemption. The AGO also challenges the Court of Appeals' holding that any party simply affected by the disclosure of public records has standing to challenge an agency's decision to waive public records exemptions.
The Washington Coalition for Open Government and the ACLU filed amicus briefs in this case.
State v. Hirschfelder, No. 82744-3. This case is about whether an 18-year-old student is a minor for purposes of the crime of "sexual misconduct with a minor."
Matthew Hirschfelder, a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School, was charged with having had sex with an eighteen-year-old member of the choir. The charge was based on the crime of He was convicted of "sexual misconduct with a minor," which (among other things) prohibits teachers from having sex with students. Hirschfelder argued, and the Division Two Court of Appeals agreed, that the statute only applies to students who are under 18. The state says it applies to all students.
UPDATE: As noted by Robert Hill in the comment threat, Hirschfelder has not been convicted of any crime, nor have the allegations of sexual conduct been proven.
The statement of the case regarding Hirschfelder is not accurate. Mr. Hirschfelder was accused but not convicted of having sex with an 18 year-old student. He moved for dismissal of the case on the basis that the alleged conduct does not constitute a crime, and that even if it does, the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied the pretrial motion, which was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which agreed with his position. He has pled not guilty and maintained his innocence of the charges, which have never been tried in court.