Tuesday's Oral Arguments
My apologies for the delay in posting these. The Court heard four arguments, as normal on Tuesday. (Briefs, docket)
Morning session (9 am)
Whatcom County Fire District v. Whatcom County, No. 836116. The Court must decide who determines whether fire protection is adequate for new developments: the county via its growth management plan, or the fire district.
As part of its comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County set levels of service for fire districts. Four developers filed for permits to build residential developments in the Birch Bay area. The fire district serving that area didn't believe it could maintain the necessary levels of service for the new residential areas without additional funding, but the county issued permits to the developers anyway.
Whatcom County Code requires a written finding that there will be adequate fire protection services before a development permit is issued. The fire district refused to issue these “concurrency letters” for the new developments, and appealed the permits. But the Division One Court of Appeals held that the “availability and adequacy” of public services is determined by the comprehensive plan, not the fire district. Thus, the court held that the district was required to issue concurrency letters, and upheld the permits.
Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management, No. 837686. Whether Washington's medical marijuana act creates a cause of action for an employee fired for failing a drug test.
Jane Roe is authorized to use marijuana under Washington's medical marijuana law. She was hired by Teletech Customer Care Management, a telemarketing company, but Teletech fired her after she failed a drug test. Roe sued Teletech for wrongful termination.
Roe argues that the medical marijuana law implies a cause of action against employers for firing people because of medical marijuana use, and that the law establishes a public policy against firing people for using medical marijuana. The Division Two Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the law simply protects medical marijuana users from criminal prosecution, and does not impose any duty on employers.
Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)
In re the Restraint Petition of Martinez, No. 832196. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove first degree burglary, and whether the petition was properly filed.
Raymond Martinez was convicted of first degree burglary after he was caught leaving a store that had been broken into. A knife apparently fell out of his belt sheath as he fled. Martinez challenges his conviction, claiming that there was insufficient evidence that he used, attempted to use, or threatened to use the knife. The Court of Appeals rejected the petition on procedural grounds.
State v. Russell, No. 843074. Whether a court must give a limiting instruction to a jury regarding evidence of past crimes if the defendant does not ask for it.
Arthur Russell was convicted of first degree child rape for sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. Russell was in the Navy, and abused his stepdaughter in Hawaii, Washington, Florida, and Indiana. The state presented evidence of the abuse in all four states. But the court did not give the jury a limiting instruction telling them they could only convict Russell for the abuse that occurred in Washington. (Evidence of the other abuse was admitted to show the pattern of abuse and Russell's “lustful disposition.”)
Russell claims that allowing the evidence of out-of-state abuse without giving a limiting instruction violated his due process rights. The state claims that Russell cannot challenge the lack of a limiting instruction since he did not request one at trial, and that the error was non-prejudicial.
