Today's arguments - June 22, 2010
Today the court will hear four cases, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. No. 822646. This case concerns whether a defense of comparative negligence based on the way a woman worked while pregnant is impermissibly discriminatory, and whether the Frye test for expert witnesses is still appropriate.
Julie Anderson worked for the auto paint company Akzo Nobel Coatings, where she mixed paint as part of her job. Anderson continued her job after becoming pregnant, and gave birth to a son with brain damage. She believes the damage was caused by exposure to paint fumes, and sued Akzo for inadequate safety procedures.
At trial, Akzo raised a comparative fault defense based on the fact that Anderson continued to mix paint during her pregnancy, contrary to the advice of her supervisor. Anderson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defense as discriminatory against her for working while pregnant. But the King County Superior Court allowed Akzo to present the defense.
Testimony by Anderson's expert witness was excluded under Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013), which requires scientific theories and methodologies to be “generally accepted in the scientific community” in order to be admissible. Anderson wants Washington to stop using the Frye test, and says that it was incorrectly applied.
Finally, the court dismissed a wrongful discharge claim by Anderson because she failed to pursue a statutory remedy.
State v. Meneses, No. 831726. Whether charging someone with both harassment and intimidation of a witness due to the same phone call is double jeopardy.
As part of a visiting dispute, Andre Meneses called his ex-girlfriend several times, cursing her and threatening to kill her. He was charged and convicted of multiple counts of telephone harassment and intimidating a witness.
The court instructed the jury that the defendant commits telephone harassment if he makes a telephone call with intent to harass someone. Meneses claims that this did not inform the jury that the intent to harass must be formed before the call is made, but the court disagreed.
The harassment and intimidation charges are based on the same phone call, which Meneses claims is double-jeopardy. But the court held the two crimes are different because each requires the state to prove a different purpose for the threat.
Meneses also asks the court to review the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of attempted intimidating a witness and witness tampering.
Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)
School District Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education v. State, No. 829616. Whether the state's funding mechanism for special education violates the state constitution.
Article 9, Section 1 of the state constitution says, “[i]t is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.” The School District Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education challenged the constitutionality of Washington's special education funding system under Article 9 as inadequate to completely provide for the education of special needs students, requiring some districts to rely on levies for special education funding.
The court found several problems with the Alliance's accounting, and ruled that their arguments “do not establish beyond a reasonable doubt” that special education is under funded. Accordingly, both a Thurston County Superior Court and Division Two Court of Appeals found the funding statute to be constitutional.
State v. Webb, No. 831777. This case presents the question of whether the burden of proving a child witness incompetent to testify is on the party calling the witness.
Samuel Webb, a minor, was convicted of raping another minor. At trial, the court required Webb to prove that the victim was incompetent to testify. Webb failed to do so.
Webb appealed, claiming the burden should have been on the state to prove his victim's competency. Division One Court of Appeals agreed, but found that the state met its burden and upheld the conviction.
The state now appeals the appellate court's finding that the burden of proof as to a child witness's competency is on the party calling the witness.
