Opinions: self-representation and missing trial records

Posted on March 25, 2010 by Michael Reitz

Two more decisions from the Supreme Court today:

State v. Madsen, No. 81450-3. The question in this case was whether the trial court properly denied a defendant's request to represent himself. Kurt Madsen was charged with three felony counts after he violated a no-contact order. At trial Madsen repeatedly requested to represent himself. The trial court denied his motion, stating he had been “extremely disruptive,” “repeatedly addressed the court at inopportune times,” and “consistently showed an inability to follow or respect the court’s directions.”

The Supreme Court, with Justice Jim Johnson writing the opinion, held that the Washington Constitution explicitly guarantees criminals the right to self-representation. The right is not absolute, however, and trial courts may determine whether a request for self-representation was made properly. The Court found that Madsen’s request had been “unequivocal, timely, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” and Madsen had repeatedly cited article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution. The Court held the trial court’s decision was in error, and remanded for further proceedings. 

Justice Mary Fairhurst concurred separately with the outcome, but expressed concerns about whether Madsen made a timely, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel.

State v. Osman, No. 82671-4. The question before the Court is what legal standard superior courts should use to review lower court rulings on the importance of missing trial records.

Abdinasir Osman was arrested and convicted for DUI. After the trial, Osman's attorney discovered that part of the trial had not been recorded. The missing portion included part of Osman's cross examination, objections to an exhibit, attorney arguments, and the judge's findings and conclusions. Osman appealed to the superior court for a new trial, which remanded the question of whether the missing record was material back to the district court. The district court found that the missing portion was not material.On appeal, the Court of Appeals held the standard of review is abuse of discretion rather than reviewing the question of materiality.

Justice Richard Sanders, writing for a unanimous court, wrote that as the missing portion of the electronic record is significant and material to the appeal, Osman is entitled to a new trial.
 

Tags: , , , ,

Today's oral arguments - January 26, 2010

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Jonathan Bechtle

Today the Court will hear its normal four arguments, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session

Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6. At what point can a party withdraw a request for a civil trial? That's the procedural question before the Court in this case.

Clifford Hapner rear-ended Lea Hudson, and Hudson sued for damages. The case went to mandatory arbitration where Hudson was awarded $14,538. After mandatory arbitration a party can request a trial before the superior court, which Hapner did. But the jury awarded Hudson $292,298. Hapner appealed, and the appellate court remanded the case for a new trial.

After discovery for the second trial, but before the trial took place, Hapner filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion for a trial. This would allow him to pay only the arbitration award, plus Hapner's court costs. The trial court struck the withdrawal at Hudson's request, but the Division Two Court of Appeals reversed, disagreeing with Hudson's argument that court rules include a time limit for withdrawal after a trial takes place.

State v. Osman, No. 82671-4. The question before the Court is what legal standard superior courts should use to review lower court rulings on the importance of missing trial records.

Abdinasir Osman was arrested and convicted for DUI. After the trial, Osman's attorney discovered that part of the trial had not been recorded. The missing portion included part of Osman's cross examination, objections to an exhibit, attorney arguments, and the judge's findings and conclusions.

A party in a district court is entitled to a new trial if a “significant or material portion” of the electronic recording is lost. Osman appealed to the superior court for a new trial, which remanded the question of whether the missing record was material back to the district court. The district court found that the missing portion was not material.

The superior court fully reviewed the district court's decision, concluded that the missing portion was material, and ordered a new trial. The state appealed, and the Division One Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, concluding that the superior court should only have looked at whether the district court overstepped its bounds in making the decision (abuse of discretion), rather than taking a whole new look at the question of materiality.

Afternoon session

State v. Hall, No. 82558-1. This case concerns whether multiple attempts to tamper with a witness can be prosecuted as multiple crimes.

Isiah Hall was charged with burglary, and Desirae Aquiningoc was called as a witness. Before the trial, Hall called Aquiningoc several times from prison and tried to get her to lie at the trial or to go into hiding. Hall was convicted of multiple counts of witness tampering.

Hall argues on appeal that all of his calls were part of a single case of witness tampering, and that convicting him multiple times violates double jeopardy. The Division One Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that each attempt to get Aquiningoc to lie or hide was a separate case of tampering.

State v. Jones, No. 82613-7. In this case, the Court will consider whether the rape shield statute bars testimony about contemporaneous sexual behavior for the purpose of proving consent.

Kashauna Dixon claimed that she was raped by her uncle, Christopher Jones. Jones admitted to having sex with her, but claimed that she consented. According to Jones, they were having a party with several others that included alcohol, sex, and drugs.

Based on Washington's rape shield statute, the trial court barred Jones from testifying about the party. Jones appealed, arguing that the statute only prohibits testimony about “past sexual behavior,” and that he wanted to testify about sexual behavior contemporaneous with the alleged rape. The Division Three Court of Appeals held that past behavior can refer even to the very recent past, and that even if the rape shield statute didn't apply the evidence would have been inadmissible because it would have unduly prejudiced the jury against Dixon.

Jones also appealed on other due process grounds, including the prosecutor's statement to the jury that Jones refused to submit to warrantless DNA testing.

Tags: , , , , ,

New cases accepted UPDATED

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review several new cases.

  • Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2
  • State v. Afana, No. 82600-5
  • State v. Osman, No. 82671-4
  • State v. Hall, No. 82558-1
  • State v. Jones, No. 82613-7
  • State v. Patel, No. 82649-8
  • McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5

Case details after the jump:

Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2. Mobile home tenants and association brought an action against the mobile home park, alleging that leases violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court ruled for the park. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling in part, and reversed in part, and remanded the caes for further proceedings.

State v. Afana, No. 82600-5. The question here is whether a police officer unconstitutionally seized a driver and passenger in a legally parked car when the officer approached and requested identification. Here, Deputy Miller approached Joseph Afana's car and asked Mr. Afana and his passenger, Jennifer Bergeron, what they were doing and requested identification. After Mr. Afana began to drive away, Deputy Miller discovered a warrant for Ms. Bergeron and stopped the car. A search incident to Ms. Bergeron's arrest uncovered illegal drugs. The trial court suppressed this evidence, concluding that Ms. Bergeron was unlawfully seized when Deputy Miller asked for identification. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) disagreed, ruling that the officer’s request for identification did not constitute a seizure. The appeals court reversed the suppression of the drug evidence.

State v. Osman, No. 82671-4. Abdinasir Osman was convicted in a jury trial of driving while under the influence of alcohol. In preparing Osman's appeal, his attorney discovered that a portion of the electronic record from the pretrial hearing was missing. Osman argued he was entitled to a new trial because of the missing portion of the record. The Superior Court ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) held the missing portion of the record was not so significant as to warrant a new trial.

State v. Hall, No. 82558-1. Whether convictions for tampering with a witness violate double jeopardy.  Isiah Hall was initially charged with burglary and assault. The prosecution later amended the charging document to add several counts of tampering with a witness, when it was discovered that Hall attempted to convince his girlfriend to either refuse to testify or to testify falsely. Hall was convicted of several crimes including three counts of tampering with a witness. Hall appealed, arguing that multiple counts of tampering with a witness violated the double jeopardy clause. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the convictions, holding that the unit of prosecution for tampering with a witness is any one instance of attempting to induce a witness or a person to do any of the actions set forth in RCW 9A.72.120.

State v. Jones, No. 82613-7. Christopher Jones was convicted of the second degree rape of his niece, K.D. The trial court imposed an exceptional minimum term sentence based on a jury finding that Mr. Jones abused a position of trust to commit the offense. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) upheld the conviction, but reversed the exceptional minimum sentence because of errors on the jury instruction form. The court ordered a new sentencing proceeding.

State v. Patel, No. 82649-8. Mitel Patel challenged his conviction for attempted second degree rape of a child. On appeal, Mr. Patel contended that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress transcripts of his instant messaging conversations with an undercover detective posing as a fictitious 13-year-old girl, and (2) denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prove an essential element of the crime. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) affirmed Mr. Patel's conviction.

McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5. Whether attorneys fees can be recovered in addition to a settlement amount. In May 2005, Julianne McGuire hired Robert Bates, B & H Construction Services, Inc. to remodel her kitchen. Bates completed the work in September 2005. A few months later, McGuire noticed water stains and other problems resulting from the remodel. McGuire reported the defects to Bates who denied any responsibility after inspecting the property. McGuire hired another contractor who repaired the defects for $2,166.00. After the matter was transferred to mandatory arbitration, Bates offered in writing to settle “all claims” for $2,180.00 pursuant to RCW 4.84.250-.280. McGuire accepted. McGuire then moved for attorney fees, claiming she was entitled to such an award as the prevailing party under RCW 18.27.040. The arbitrator denied the motion, ruling that the parties' agreement to settle “all claims” necessarily included attorney fees. On appeal, the trial court ruled in McGuire’s favor, awarding her attorneys fees, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling.
Tags: , , , , , , ,