Today's Arguments - September 21, 2010
Today the Court will hear four arguments, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
In re J. David Smith, No. 200748-1. Whether a court rule that presumes an attorney who has pled guilty to a crime has actually committed the crime is constitutional.
As part of a plea bargain, J. David Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct Rule 10.14(c) provides that a lawyer's conviction for a crime creates a conclusive presumption that the lawyer committed the crime. Based on this, the disciplinary board found that Smith had violated various professional rules and recommended that he be disbarred.
Smith argues that ELC 10.14(c) is unconstitutional when it assumes that he is guilty because he pleaded guilty. He says that it violates his due process rights because it keeps him from presenting a defense.
State v. Grier, No. 83452-1. Whether an attorney's failure to ask the judge to instruct the jury on less serious offenses the defendant could be found guilty of constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Kristina Grier and Gregory Owen were drinking with several other people at Grier's house. During the evening Owen stole several items from Grier, including three guns, and got into several fights with Grier and her son. During the last fight a gun went off, killing Owen.
The state charged Grier with second degree murder. The defense requested jury instructions on lesser offenses included in the charge of murder, such as assault, but then withdrew the request, so the jury was not instructed on those offenses. The jury convicted Grier of murder. On appeal, the Division Two Court of Appeals held that the failure to request instructions on the lesser included offenses was ineffective assistance of counsel.
Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)
Qualcomm Inc. v. Washington Department of Revenue, No. 83673-6. Whether the primary purpose of Qualcomm's OmniTRACS system is information or telecommunications..jpg)
Qualcomm provides a service called OmniTRACS to truck companies. The service uses satellites to track the location of trucks and sensors to track data like engine condition and fuel use. OmniTRACS also allows truckers to communicate with their dispatch office through the system.
The Department of Revenue reclassified OmniTRACS from an information service to a telecommunication service, with tax ramifications. Qualcomm argues that this was wrong because the primary purpose of the system is providing “processed data or information.” The Division Two Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the primary purpose of the system is data transmission.
State v. Marohl, No. 83570-5. This is a case we discussed when it first was accepted for review, since it seemed like such a great bar exam question. It concerns whether a casino floor can be considered an "instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm."
James Marohl, a martial artist, got into a fight in a casino. He put his opponent into a choke hold and then threw him to the ground. Marohl was convicted of third degree assault based on causing bodily harm using an “instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.” In this case the instrument or thing is the casino floor. Marohl argues on appeal that the floor is not an “instrument or thing” within the meaning of the statute. He lost at both the trial and appellate court levels.
