Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Erick Jordan appealed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming his convictions and sentence for second degree murder with a firearm enhancement and first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. At issue was whether differences between self-defense standards in Washington and Texas barred a sentencing court from finding that manslaughter convictions in these states were legally comparable. The Washington Supreme Court held they did not and affirmed the lower court. View "Washington v. Jordan" on Justia Law

In 2008, Clinton Morgan was awaiting a civil commitment trial to determine if he was likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined to a secure facility. Defense counsel became concerned that Morgan (who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia) was exhibiting psychotic symptoms. Morgan's counsel requested a competency determination and sought an order for involuntary medication to control Morgan's delusions during trial. The trial judge determined that Morgan was incompetent, appointed a guardian ad litem to represent his interests, and ordered involuntary medication. His trial followed, and the jury unanimously found him to be a sexually violent predator. He was confined in the Special Commitment Center. Morgan appealed, arguing that he had due process rights to be competent during a sexually violent predator trial and arguing that a pretrial in-chambers conference violated his right to a public trial. Finding no grounds to disturb the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed his commitment. View "In re Det. of Morgan" on Justia Law

This case arose from the legal defense of Maribel Gomez against charges of manslaughter and homicide by abuse for the death of her son. She argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the preparation and presentation of her defense. Upon review of the gruesome facts surrounding the child's death and the Gomez's manslaughter trial, the Supreme Court concluded Gomez did not meet her burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel: "[t]he trial court transcripts paint a picture of a supremely fair trial at which Gomez was represented by a highly competent attorney. Having received a fair trial with effective attorney assistance, the State was able to prove all elements of homicide by abuse." View "In re Pers. Restraint of Gomez" on Justia Law

The trial court excluded defendant Andre Franklin's proffered evidence that someone else committed the cyberstalking-related crimes with which he was charged. The Supreme Court reversed: "the United States Constitution bars the trial court from considering the strength or weakness of the State's case in deciding whether to exclude defense-proffered other suspect evidence. [. . .] our cases hold that if there is an adequate nexus between the alleged other suspect and the crime, such evidence should be admitted. The trial court violated both of these rules: it considered the strength of the State's case against the defendant and it applied a per se standard to exclude the other suspect evidence. Thus, its exclusion of the proffered other suspect evidence was error under both our case law and our constitution." View "Washington v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Jennifer Holmes and James Lindsay entered the home of Laurence Wilkey, Holmes's former boyfriend. They tied him up, beat him, and took a number of items from his home. The State charged Holmes and Lindsay with first degree robbery, burglary, kidnapping, assault, and firearm theft. Holmes and Lindsay argued that they did not intend to commit a felony but were instead repossessing things that Wilkey had originally stolen from Holmes. A jury convicted them on most, but not all, counts. On appeal, Holmes and Lindsay argued that the prosecutor's remarks, particularly during closing arguments, constituted misconduct that prejudiced both defendants. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor committed misconduct but split as to whether that misconduct caused prejudice. "[G]iven the magnitude of the problem and the lawyers' inability to control their conduct," the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' dissent and reversed the trial court. View "Washington v. Lindsay" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether Samuel Piatnitsky unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent when he told police investigating a murder that, "I don't want to talk right now" but that he would "write it down." The Court concluded that it was, "at best," an equivocal invocation of the right to remain silent, and thus, the trial judge did not err in admitting Piatnitsky' s written confession. View "Washington v. Piatnitsky" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cesar Trochez-Jimenez appealed his conviction for murder in the second degree, arguing the statements he made during custodial interrogation should have been suppressed because they were taken in violation of his Miranda rights. The case law petitioner cited on appeal held that prior to custodial interrogation, a suspect must be informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel, and once the suspect invokes his right to counsel, no further interrogation about any offense by any authorities could be conducted until counsel was present or the suspect initiated communication. These cases, however, involved only domestic investigations regarding domestic crimes. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the same rule applied when a suspect requests an attorney during an interrogation conducted outside the United States by foreign authorities regarding a foreign crime. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals said it did not. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. View "Washington v. Trochez-Jimenez" on Justia Law

Respondent-cross-petitioner J.C. Johnson was convicted of five crimes related to several days of ongoing domestic violence against his wife. A jury convicted Johnson for holding his wife “J.J.” under his control, allowing her only to leave their apartment when Johnson left, using his Rottweiler to restrain her movements, and keeping a knife and icepick near the bed to intimidate her. For three days, Johnson severely injured his wife by choking her, hitting her with rocks, and allowing the dog to bite her. J.J. managed to escape and receive treatment for her injuries. On appeal, Johnson argued: (1) the information for the unlawful imprisonment charges were insufficient because it did not include a definition of the word “restraint;” and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyer proposed a definition of “reckless” in jury instructions that did not include charge-specific language when the “to convict” instruction included the specific language. The Court of Appeals overturned Johnson’s unlawful imprisonment conviction because the State omitted the definition of “restrain.” The appellate court agreed with Johnson that it was error to give a jury instruction on a generic definition of “reckless,” but that trial counsel was not ineffective for proposing it. The Supreme Court reversed on the “restraint” issue, holding that charging documents need only contain essential elements of a crime, not related definitions. With regard to the “reckless” issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, but for a different reason: it was not error to instruct a jury on the generic definition as long as the jury was given a “to convict” instruction that lists every element of the crime the State needs to prove in order to convict the defendant. View "Washington v. Johnson" on Justia Law

While petitioner Mario Medina was awaiting retrial on charges of second degree murder, he was ordered to participate in two King County Community Center for Alternative Programs (CCAP): "CCAP Enhanced" and "CCAP Basic." Petitioner participated in these programs for approximately five years before his second trial resulted in a conviction. He argued that he was entitled, as a matter of both statutory and constitutional law, to credit for time served in the alternative programs. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Washington v. Medina" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review in this case was whether Ronald Mendes was "compelled" to waive his constitutional right not to testify as a witness in his own criminal case after the trial court refused to rule on whether the evidence presented during the State's case in chief entitled Mendes to a self-defense instruction. Mendes challenged his conviction for felony murder based on allegations that he shot and killed Danny Saylor after an altercation at Saylor's home. At trial, Mendes's theory of the case was that he acted in self-defense after Saylor came at him with a baseball bat. After the State rested, Mendes's counsel asked the court to make a preliminary ruling on whether enough evidence had been presented through the State's witnesses to warrant a self-defense instruction. The State objected, and the trial court declined to rule on Mendes's request. Mendes then testified on his own behalf. Mendes was convicted of felony murder. On appeal, Mendes argued that the trial court improperly compelled him to testify when it declined to rule on whether the State's evidence alone entitled him to a self-defense instruction. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that Mendes was not entitled to an advisory ruling on jury instructions before the close of all the evidence and that Mendes's decision to testify was voluntary and tactical. Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Washington v. Mendes" on Justia Law