Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, No. 82229-8. Jose Sanchez and Mario Mendez were each charged with two counts of aggravated first-degree murder in Yakima County. Defendants were found indigent and were provided attorneys at public expense. Two judges were assigned: one for the trial and the other, Judge C. James Lust, to rule on motions concerning public funding for the defense. All of these motions and related records were sealed, and the orders sealing them were also sealed. Mendez eventually pleaded guilty; Sanchez was convicted and appealed.

On March 7, 2008, the Herald-Republic made a motion to intervene in the two criminal actions for the limited purpose of challenging the continued orders sealing the pleadings and other financial documents related to the court-appointed defense costs .... The paper reasoned: "The criminal proceedings have concluded; the defendants' right to a fair trial has been preserved. The public now deserves to know how much the preservation of those rights cost."

Both defense attorneys opposed the motion. Sanchez's attorney argued that it was premature since his client's case was still on appeal and that such disclosure would at least require the permission of the court of appeals. Mendez's counsel challenged the paper's right to intervene at all. Judge Lust agreed with Sanchez's attorney that the motion would require approval from the appeals court.

The newspaper then filed requests pursuant to the Public Records Act with the Yakima County court administrator, clerk of Yakima County Superior Court, and Yakima County's public records officer. When the requests were denied, the paper and the County each sued the other. The trial court found that the PRA did not apply because the records sought were court records.

The State Supreme Court today reaffirms its earlier holding in Koenig, that documents actually held by the judiciary are not subject to the Public Records Act. However, the Court also finds that Judge Lust was free to unseal the records that he had previously sealed because they had no bearing on the decision being reviewed by the court of appeals. The Court modifies its 1979 holding in State v. Bianchi, clarifying that the newspaper does have standing in this case. The Court further holds that all documents held by the County were covered by the PRA and were not sealed by Judge Lust. The Court remands to the trial court and awards costs and attorney fees, but not penalties, to the newspaper.

The Chief Justice wrote the Court's opinion, joined by all the justices save new Justice Wiggins, who did not participate. Former Justice Sanders signed the opinion as Justice Pro Tem. and as to the result only. (briefs, argument)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This month we cover public access to criminal defense billing records, warrantless searches of locked vehicles, and the court’s opinion on whether minors have a constitutional right to possess guns.

Supreme Court of Washington Podcast - Does Sieyes matter?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In case you have a fetish for following open government law, like we do, here's the video from yesterday's oral argument in Yakima County v. Yakima Herald Republic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link