Last Thursday's Opinions: No-contact orders, stalking, and telephone harassment
State v. Bunker, No. 81921-1. Three defendants, each convicted of violating a no-contact order, appeal those convictions. Looking to a "shall arrest" clause in the statute," defendants argue that the law (former RCW 26.50.110) "criminalizes only those contacts with a protected party that are violent, threaten violence, or occur in a specifically prohibited place."
The Court, in an opinion by Justice James Johnson and joined by seven other justices, holds that the plain language of the statute and the clear intent of the legislature is to criminalize all violations of a no-contact order. Justice Sanders dissents. (briefs, argument)
State v. Kintz, No. 81688-3. Clarence Kintz was convicted of two charges of misdemeanor stalking and appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation of the statutory phrase "separate occasions" and the sufficiency of the evidence. In two incidents, one in December 2005 and the other in January 2006, Kintz 
frightened women by repeatedly and slowly driving past them and, in the latter case, offering the woman a ride and money. Both women called 911 and Kintz, who admitted some of the details of each incident, was eventually charged.
Kintz argues that "separate occasions" is ambiguous and that the Court should apply the rule of lenity to find that separate occasions must happen over a greater length of time than in these incidents. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions and the Supreme Court sustains that decision, agreeing with the lower court that the plain meaning of "separate occasions" is "a distinct, individual, noncontinuous occurrence or incident." The Court also finds sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Justice Alexander authored the opinion for a majority of seven.
Justice Sanders dissents and would hold that the events leading to each of these stalking charges should be considered a single occasion, rather than "separate occasions," and thus do not meet the statutory definition of stalking. For related reasons, he would also find insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. Justice Chambers dissents separately in order to agree with Justice Sanders only as to the ambiguity in the term "separate occasions." (briefs, argument)
State v. Meneses, No. 83172-6. Andre Toi Meneses fathered a child by his then-girlfriend Jamila Willis. After they broke up, the child remained with Willis. Meneses began repeatedly calling Willis and leaving voice mail 
messages for her using "incredibly vile language, including racial slurs and descriptive obscenities," and threatening to kill Willis, her new boyfriend, and the new couple's infant. Willis eventually called the police, who recorded ten messages left by Meneses that became the basis for ten charges against him: four counts of felony telephone harassment, four counts of gross misdemeanor telephone harassment, and two counts of intimidating a witness. He was convicted by a jury on all counts.
The Court of Appeals sustained the convictions. The Supreme Court considered three issues raised by Meneses. First, the jury instruction on telephone harassment did not fail to specify that the criminal intent must have been formed before the call was placed. The instruction used the statutory language, and the Court has previously held that the meaning of the statute is clear on its face. Second, it did not violate double jeopardy for a count of telephone harassment and a count of intimidating a witness to arise from the same message because "each [conviction] required proof of a fact the other did not." Finally, because [n]o affirmative evidence supported the idea that Meneses committed witness tampering but not intimidating a witness," the trial court was not obligated to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense.
The Court, with an opinion by Justice Stephens, unanimously upholds the courts below. (briefs, argument)
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.
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.
