Today's arguments - March 9, 2010
Today the Court will hear four arguments concerning criminal evidence, public records and due process. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m.
State v. Ibarra-Cizneros, No. 82219-1. The question before the Court is whether prosecutors can use criminal evidence uncovered via a cell phone seized illegally by police.
Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros called his brother's cell phone, not knowing that his brother had been arrested and the phone seized by police. The police answered the phone and arranged to meet with Gilberto. At the meeting, undercover officers found drugs on him and arrested him.
Later a court determined that the search leading to the brother's arrest (and thus the seizure of the cell phone) was illegal. Gilberto argues that since the police only turned their attention to him because of the cell phone, all the evidence from their meeting is “fruit of the poisonous tree” barred by the exclusionary rule. The Walla Walla Superior Court disagreed, holding that the link between the phone and the evidence was “too attenuated” to impact Gilberto’s conviction.
The Division Three Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, No. 82229-8. This case concerns whether the Public Records Act compels disclosure of sealed billing records concerning fees paid by Yakima County to public defense attorneys.
Yakima County appointed lawyers to represent two indigent murder defendants, paying them approximately $2 million. As part of the payment process, a judge who was not otherwise involved in the case reviewed the lawyers' bills to decide whether they should be paid.
The Yakima Herald-Republic filed a request under the Public Records Act for spreadsheets and other files related to the bills. The County withheld the records, claiming that they were exempt from the Public Records Act under Nast v. Michels because they are judicial records. The Herald-Republic argues that Nast only exempts “court case files,” not administrative records.
The Court recently ruled on a similar issue in Federal Way v. Koenig, affirming Nast and finding that administrative court records were not subject to the PRA, so it will be interesting to see what differentiation the Court makes in this case.
Afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m.
State v. Nason, No. 82333-2. The issue before the Court is whether Spokane County's policy of imposing jail time on offenders who fail to pay court costs violates due process.
James Nason was convicted of burglary, sentenced to community service, and ordered to pay certain court costs. He did not pay, and the court subsequently modified his sentence to impose jail time. (Spokane County has a policy allowing the courts to order jail time when a defendant refuses to pay his obligations.) Nason argues on appeal that this violated his due process rights in various ways, including the lack of a separate hearing and the fact that he was not given credit against his financial obligations for the time served in jail.
The Division Three Court of Appeals upheld his sentence.
State v. Stubbs, No. 81650-6. This case concerns whether a stabbing that results in partial paralysis satisfies the requirement for an exceptional sentence for first degree assault, and whether the requirement itself is unconstitutionally vague.
Troy Stubbs stabbed Ryan Goodwin in the neck, severing his spinal cord and paralyzing him from the waist down. Stubbs was convicted of first degree assault and given an exceptional sentence due to his victim's injuries. Such sentences are allowed where the injuries “substantially exceed the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements” of a crime.
Stubbs argues that since one element of first degree assault is the infliction of “great bodily harm,” Goodwin's extreme injuries are an element of the crime. The court disagreed, holding that the jury could find that Goodwin's injuries substantially exceeded the great bodily harm element.
Stubbs also argues that the test for an exceptional sentence, found in RCW 9.94A.535(3)(y), is unconstitutionally vague.
