Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Johnny Fuller was charged with two counts of assault in the second degree, each count presenting an alternative means of committing the offense. The jury acquitted Fuller of one count and deadlocked on the other. The trial court declared a mistrial on that count, and the State sought to retry Fuller. Fuller moved to dismiss, arguing that retrial would subject him to re-prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, in violation of double jeopardy. The superior court denied Fuller's motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Washington Supreme Court held that jeopardy never terminated as to the count the State sought to retry, and that the jury's acquittal on the other count was of no consequence. Because retrial did not implicate double jeopardy, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Fuller" on Justia Law

In 2013, Envision Spokane gathered enough signatures to place a local initiative on the ballot that would establish a "Community Bill of Rights." Petitioners filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the Envision Initiative. The petitioners included Spokane County, individual residents of Spokane (including two city council members acting in their individual capacities), for-profit corporations and companies in Spokane (including Pearson Packaging Systems and the utility company A vista Corporation), and nonprofit associations (including the Spokane Association of Realtors, the Spokane Building Owners and Managers Association, the Spokane Home Builders Association, and local chambers of commerce). The trial judge ruled that (1) petitioners had standing to challenge the initiative and (2) the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. She therefore instructed that it be struck from the ballot. Envision Spokane appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing and ordered the initiative be put on the next available ballot. The first issue before the Supreme Court in this case was who has standing to bring those types of challenges. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals created new limits on who can bring such challenges, but the Supreme Court reversed and adhered to existing standards because they adequately ensured that only those affected by an ordinance may challenge it. Applying those existing standards, the Supreme Court found that petitioners in this case had standing to bring this challenge. The second issue in this case was the substance of the petitioners' challenge: whether the initiative's subject matter fell within the scope of authority granted to local residents. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that this local initiative exceeds the scope of local initiative power and should not have been put on the ballot. View "Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review concerned the authority of an Idaho court to impact property in Washington and whether the Washington Court had to respect that court's orders. This case arose through OneWest Bank FSB's attempted foreclosure of Washington property based on a reverse mortgage that an Idaho court ordered through Bill McKee's conservatorship proceedings. McKee's daughter, Maureen Erickson, challenged the foreclosure, claiming the reverse mortgage was void because she was the actual owner of the property and the Idaho court had no jurisdiction to affect Washington property. The trial court granted summary judgment to OneWest, allowing it to proceed with foreclosure, but the Court of Appeals reversed and granted summary judgment for Erickson. The Washington Supreme Court had to decide whether the lower courts were required to give full faith and credit to the Idaho court orders. After review, the Supreme Court held that full faith and credit was due and OneWest was entitled to foreclose its reverse mortgage on the Spokane property. View "OneWest Bank FSB v. Erickson" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Andrea Rich of driving under the influence (DUI) and reckless endangerment. The evidence showed that Rich was speeding in traffic while highly intoxicated and with a young child in the front passenger seat. But the officer who arrested Rich followed her car because he believed that the car was stolen. Rich's manner of driving posed no observable danger. The Court of Appeals reversed the reckless endangerment conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Rich's driving created an actual, substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. The Court of Appeals ruled, on an issue of first impression, that proof of a DUI does not necessarily establish proof of reckless endangerment. The Supreme Court agreed that proof of DUI alone did not necessarily establish proof of reckless endangerment. However, the Court found that a reasonable juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger, knew of that risk and disregarded it. The Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed on the reckless endangerment conviction. View "Washington v. Rich" on Justia Law

Seattle Police Officer Michael Conners stopped a vehicle driven by Wayne Evans for speeding in the Central District of Seattle. As Conners approached Evans's vehicle, he observed furtive movements from Evans and his passenger, and smelled marijuana. Conners directed Evans to exit the vehicle and asked him whether he had any weapons. Evans responded that there was a knife in his pocket. Conners instructed Evans not to reach for the knife; Conners then reached into Evans's front right pocket, retrieved a fixed-blade knife with a black handle, and placed Evans under arrest for possession of a fixed-blade knife. The city of Seattle charged Evans with the unlawful use of weapons. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and Evans's conviction was affirmed by the superior court and the Court of Appeals. On appeal of that conviction, Evans argued that Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 12A.14.0801 violated his right to bear arms under article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the ordinance does not permit him to carry a small, fixed-blade "paring" knife for the purpose of self-defense. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but on different grounds: the Court held that Evans' paring knife was not an arm entitled to constitutional protection, and that Evans therefore could not establish that SMC 12A.14.080 was unconstitutionally applied to him. View "City of Seattle v. Evans" on Justia Law

Petitioner Zachary Larson was convicted under the statute for committing retail theft while in possession of wire cutters. He used the wire cutters to remove a security tag from a pair of Nike shoes worth $32 at a Marshall's store in Bellingham. The State elected to charge Larson under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) rather than the ordinary theft statute. Larson argued on appeal that as a matter of law, wire cutters do not constitute a device "designed to overcome security systems" as required by the statute and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for retail theft with extenuating circumstances. After review, the Washington Supreme Court held that the plain language of RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) established the legislature's intent to target organized retail theft only where particular types of tools were utilized. "An item, article, implement, or device is 'designed to overcome security systems' if it is created-whether by the manufacturer or the defendant-with the specific purpose of disabling or evading security systems." The Court held that ordinary, unmodified wire cutters did not fall within this definition, so the evidence was insufficient to support petitioner Larson's conviction for retail theft with extenuating circumstances. View "Washington v. Larson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Reeder appealed a Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and 14 counts of theft in the first degree. He argued: (1) subpoenas duces tecum issued by a special inquiry judge (SIJ) to financial institutions for Reeder's private bank records violated his constitutional rights under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution; and (2) his sentence violated principles of double jeopardy because the trial court imposed multiple punishments for the same offense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Reeder's conviction and sentence. View "Washington v. Reeder" on Justia Law

Zahid Khan was tried, without an interpreter, for multiple counts of child molestation and rape. Khan was not a native English speaker, and his level of English fluency was disputed. It was undisputed that he was not offered an interpreter by the court or by his attorney. He was convicted, and on appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, Khan argued among other things, that his trial was unfair and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not securing an interpreter. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Khan had not made the requisite showing for the Court to vacate his sentence. In the alternative, Khan asked for an evidentiary hearing to develop the factual basis for his claims. The Court concluded that Khan did make the requisite showing for such a hearing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' order dismissing this personal restraint petition was vacated, and the case remanded for entry of an order transferring Khan’s petition to the Snohomish County Superior Court for a reference hearing. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Khan" on Justia Law

On the eve of Matthew Hampton's trial, Hampton moved to replace his appointed counsel with a new private attorney on the condition that the trial be continued so his new counsel could prepare. The trial court denied the continuance, so Hampton proceeded with his previously appointed counsel. He was ultimately convicted of third degree rape. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court's decision violated Hampton's constitutional right to his choice of counsel because it considered Hampton's reasons for wanting a new attorney. The Court of Appeals relied on a United States Supreme Court opinion that held that when a defendant's right to choice of counsel was erroneously denied, a defendant need not show prejudice in order to obtain relief. The Supreme Court reversed: “[a] trial court has wide latitude to grant or deny a motion to delay trial related to a defendant's request to change counsel. . . . In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hampton's request to delay trial to allow him to replace his counsel given that (1) he did not make his request until the day his trial was scheduled to start, (2) his trial had already been continued once, (3) the victim/witness opposed the continuance, and (4) he did not explain his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel.” View "Washington v. Hampton" on Justia Law

In this case, Javier Ruiz-Sanabria timely filed a motion in superior court to withdraw his guilty plea to several sex offenses. The court transferred his motion to Division One of the Court of Appeals, but without indicating the basis for the transfer and without transferring all records filed in relation to Ruiz-Sanabria's motion. Considering the motion as a personal restraint petition based solely on the partial record that was transmitted, and without requesting a response from the State, the acting chief judge of Division One dismissed the petition as frivolous. By way of this opinion, the Supreme Court clarified the criteria a superior court must consider before transferring a postconviction motion to the Court of Appeals, the relationship between the rules governing personal restraint petitions and evidentiary prerequisites that a petitioner must meet, and when the petitioner's allegations may require the court to consult existing court records that the petitioner has not produced: “We have said that the petitioner must demonstrate that he has competent, admissible evidence to establish the facts that entitle him to relief, and that bare assertions and conclusory allegations are insufficient. But if the petitioner makes specific and material factual allegations within the petitioner's knowledge about court proceedings that can be answered by the State, the Court of Appeals should require a response that includes the relevant court documents. In this instance, remand to the Court of Appeals is warranted.” View "In re Pers. Restraint of Ruiz-Sanabria" on Justia Law