Today's Opinions: Evidence and negligence

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Trent England

State v. Russell, No. 84307-4. Arthur Russell was convicted of first degree rape of a child. The trial court admitted evidence of similar acts committed by Russell against the victim in other states for the limited purposes of corroboration and showing Russell's disposition toward the victim (as permitted by ER 404(b)). Russell's attorney did not request a limiting instruction from the trial judge and none was given. On appeal, Russell argued that the trial court was required to give a limiting instruction. The court of appeals accepted this argument and overturned the conviction.

The Supreme Court today unanimously reverses the court of appeals and affirms Russell's conviction. A trial court is not required to provide a limiting instruction sua sponte; ER 105 applies to evidence admitted under ER 404(b). Justice Fairhurst wrote for the Court. (briefs, argument)

Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., No. 83385-1. Alizon Veit was driving across railroad tracks in Bellingham when she was hit by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight train. She sued, alleging negligence. Veit claimed, among other things, that BNSF was negligent because the train was traveling faster than an internal speed limit of 30 miles per hour on the particular tracks. The trial court found this claim preempted by a federal speed limit of 40 miles per hour and granted partial summary judgment to BNSF. At trial, a jury found that BNSF was not liable.

Veit appealed the partial summary judgment and the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of her exercise of due care at the crossing. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court today unanimously upholds the decisions below. The opinion, by the Chief Justice, reiterates that the federal speed regulation preempts claims based on company speed limits and that because "Washington is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction" and the jury was properly instructed, evidence of her lack of contributory negligence was irrelevant. (briefs, argument)

Tags: , , , , ,

Tuesday's Oral Arguments

Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jonathan Bechtle

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. 

Tags: , , , ,

New cases accepted for review

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court agreed to review several new cases during its July 6 conference.

  • State v. Morales, No. 84197-7
  • State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3
  • State v. Russell, No. 84307-4
  • Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4
  • Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0
  • Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5
  • State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2
  • Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9
  • Mitch Dowler, et al. v. Clover Park School District No. 400, No. 84048-2

 

State v. Morales, No. 84197-7. Jose Matilde Morales appealed his convictions for vehicular assault and driving under the influence, arguing (1) the trial court erroneously admitted his blood alcohol test results because the State failed to show that he was advised of his statutory right to an independent blood test, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted beer containers found during a search of his vehicle, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he operated his motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants and that he operated his vehicle in a reckless manner. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed his conviction.

State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3. Steven Beadle was convicted on two counts of first degree child molestation. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the child’s hearsay statements and unfairly prejudicial testimony regarding the child’s behavior. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed his conviction.

State v. Russell, No. 84307-4. Arthur C. Russell was convicted for first degree child rape-domestic violence. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the trial court, holding that the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other alleged sexual abuse of the victim without giving the jury a required limiting instruction.

Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4. In this land use case, Douglas County approved a recreational overlay district to accommodate an extension of a bicycle/pedestrian trail, which borders agricultural land used for orchards. Area orchardists objected to the overlay district. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) held that the recreational overlay district was not an amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and that a challenge to the comprehensive plan came too late. The court also rejected the argument that the recreational overlay district ran afoul of state statutes that encourage the preservation of agricultural land. The court dismissed the challenges of the orchardists.

Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0. David Moeller had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Company. After the vehicle was damaged in a collision, Farmers paid the full cost of repairs, less a deductible. Moeller claimed that the policy also covered loss for the diminished value of his vehicle, but Farmers disagreed. Moeller filed a class action lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court certified a class but granted Farmers’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed and reversed in part, holding that diminished value was loss under the insurance policy.

Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5. A developer appealed the denial by the city of rezone requests and subdivision applications. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Phoenix's proposed rezones implement the Woodinville comprehensive plan and current zoning code and comply with the city code's general rezone criteria.

State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2. A former juvenile offender petitioned for the restoration of his firearms rights. The superior court denied his petition and the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed.

Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9. A neighboring landowner brought a land use action challenging a conditional use permit by the county authorizing a animal boarding facility to remodel and expand facility. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the county’s decision granting a conditional use permit was a final determination, and that the challenging landowner’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the 21-day filing deadline to appeal the decision to grant the permit;

Several petitions for review were granted and immediately remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.

Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010):

  • State v. Aarhus, No. 84140-3
  • State v. Thomas, No. 83678-7

Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010):

  • State v. Huynh, No. 82807-5
  • State v. Jones, No. 79689-1
  • State v. Graham, No. 80088-0
  • State v. Latourette, No. 81607-7
Tags: , , , , , , , ,