Today's arguments - May 11, 2010

Posted on May 11, 2010 by Jonathan Bechtle

On the second argument day of the new session, the Court's docket includes cases on racism, teacher-student sex and the Public Records Act. The Justices will hear four cases, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session (9:00 a.m.)

State v. Sanchez, No. 82731-1. This case concerns the constitutionality of a specific condition of community custody, and what showing of harm from the condition is required to make the case ripe for a constitutional challenge.

Isidoro Valencia and Eduardo Sanchez were convicted of drug crimes, and their sentences included "community custody." One condition of the community custody was a ban on possessing “any paraphernalia that can be used for the ingestion or processing of controlled substances or that can be used to facilitate the sale or transfer of controlled substances.”

Valencia and Sanchez appealed this condition as being unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals (Division Two) held that the appeal was not yet ripe because the defendants had not yet been harmed by the condition, and that they must wait to appeal until they are charged with violating the condition. Petitioners argue they are harmed by the hardship of complying with a vague condition.

State v. Monday, No. 82736-2. The Court will hear arguments regarding whether allegedly racist and disparaging comments made by the prosecutor prejudiced the jury, and whether a firearm enhancement can be imposed if "firearm" is not defined for the jury.

Kevin Monday was convicted of murder. During the trial, the prosecutor told the jury, “The code is black folk don't testify against black folk. You don't snitch to the police.” Monday claims this was racist. He also made other claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including the prosecutor improperly using the prestige of his office and making fun of witnesses' accents.

In addition, Monday claims that the imposition of a firearm enhancement (meaning the sentence was increased because a firearm was used in the crime) was improper because the court did not define “firearm” for the jury.

The Division One Court of Appeals held that if there were errors, they were not prejudicial.

 

Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)

Ameriquest Mortgage Co v. Washington Attorney General, No. 82690-1. This case presents the question of whether the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the state Public Records Act.

During an investigation by the Attorney General's Office, Ameriquest Mortgage Company turned a number of documents over to the AGO, including many consumer loan files. A public records request was filed for the documents, and Ameriquest sued the AGO to keep the files secret.

Division Two Court of Appeals held that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the PRA, preventing disclosure of the loan files. The AGO argues that the statutes are not in conflict, and thus there is no preemption. The AGO also challenges the Court of Appeals' holding that any party simply affected by the disclosure of public records has standing to challenge an agency's decision to waive public records exemptions.

The Washington Coalition for Open Government and the ACLU filed amicus briefs in this case.

State v. Hirschfelder, No. 82744-3. This case is about whether an 18-year-old student is a minor for purposes of the crime of "sexual misconduct with a minor."

Matthew Hirschfelder, a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School, was charged with having had sex with an eighteen-year-old member of the choir. The charge was based on the crime of He was convicted of "sexual misconduct with a minor," which (among other things) prohibits teachers from having sex with students. Hirschfelder argued, and the Division Two Court of Appeals agreed, that the statute only applies to students who are under 18. The state says it applies to all students.

UPDATE: As noted by Robert Hill in the comment threat, Hirschfelder has not been convicted of any crime, nor have the allegations of sexual conduct been proven.

Tags: , , , ,

Supreme Court orders for 3/3/09

Posted on March 4, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court granted review in seven cases yesterday. Orders here.

  • Momah v. Bharti, No. 82059-7
  • State v. Peterson, No. 82089-9
  • State v. Nonog, No. 82094-5
  • State v. Kelley, No. 82111-9
  • Waples v. Yi, No. 82142-9
  • State v. Sandoval, No. 82175-5
  • State v. Sanchez, No. 82180-1

Details after the jump.

Department One granted review in four cases.

Momah v. Bharti, No. 82059-7
Dennis Momah and his twin brother, Charles Momah are both physicians. Charles Momah was accused and subsequently convicted of rape and sexual abuse of several patients in his OB/GYN practice. In addition, several of those patients brought civil suits against Charles. Harish Bharti is the attorney who filed these civil suits.

Harish Bharti alleged that in addition to Charles' wrongdoing, Dennis Momah had sexually assaulted patients and had been charged with criminal offenses. Dennis Momah filed a defamation action against Bharti. A King County Superior Court judge granted summary judgment for the attorney, and Dr. Momah appealed. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) vacated the award of summary judgment and attorney Harish Bharti appealed.

This case has already attracted significant national attention.

State v. Peterson, No. 82089-9
Michael Peterson was convicted in Snohomish County Superior Court of failure to register as sex offender. In September 2005 Peterson registered at an apartment in Everett. During a routine verification in November 2005 an Everett police officer was unable to find Peterson, who had moved out four days earlier. Peterson did not register again until December 6, when he registered as homeless.

A sex offender has a statutory duty to register with the sheriff of the county of residence. The statute establishes different timelines for changing registration if the offender has a fixed address or is homeless. The State could not determine Peterson's whereabouts after he left the Everett address, and charged him with a general violation of the law, rather than specifying whether Peterson moved to a new address or became homeless. A jury found Peterson guilty of failure to register, and he appealed.

The Court of Appeals (Div. I) reversed the conviction. The Court ruled that the State’s charging document was defective because it omitted the essential element that the crime was committed “knowingly.” An insufficient charging document requires reversal and dismissal of charges without prejudice. The Court also ruled that failure to register as a sex offender does not require State to prove whether defendant moved to fixed address or was homeless.

State v. Nonog, No. 82094-5
Cipriano Bahit Nonog was convicted in King County Superior Court of felony violation of a domestic violence protection order, residential burglary-domestic violence, and interfering with domestic violence reporting. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) upheld the conviction, and ruled that the information charging the defendant sufficiently defined the charges.

State v. Kelley, No. 82111-9
Dustin Kelly was convicted in Pierce County Superior Court of first degree murder, second degree unlawful firearm possession, and second degree assault with firearm sentence enhancements. Defendant Kelly appealed to the Court of Appeals (Div. II), arguing that the firearm sentence enhancement on his second degree assault conviction violates double jeopardy. Kelley conceded that Division I of the Court of Appeals previously rejected this double-jeopardy argument in State v. Nguyen (2006), but he argued that Division I incorrectly applied the law. Division II disagreed and embraced State v. Nguyen.

Department Two granted review for three cases.

Waples v. Yi, No. 82142-9
Nancy Waples brought a negligence action against her dentist, Peter Yi, alleging the dentist's employee injured her by negligently injecting anesthetic. The Pierce County Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals (Div. II) affirmed the dismissal, ruling the patient failed to provide a mandatory 90-day written notice of intention to sue.

State v. Sandoval, No. 82175-5
Valentin Sandoval was pled guilty to a third-degree rape conviction. He seeks to vacate this conviction by challenging his trial counsel's effectiveness, who misadvised him of the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) affirmed Sandoval's conviction and guilty plea.

State v. Sanchez, No. 82180-1
Francisco Sanchez challenged a drug conviction, contending that the prosecutor committed misconduct by cross examining him concerning the testimony of a codefendant. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) affirmed. The Supreem Court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.
Tags: , , , , , , ,