Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Phillip Garcia Jr. appealed his convictions for kidnapping in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and criminal trespass in the first degree. He argued that that the evidence was insufficient to support each of the alternative means of kidnapping presented to the jury, that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by limiting his cross-examination of an adverse witness, that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior crime of dishonesty, and that the prosecutor incorrectly defined "burglary" during closing arguments. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed petitioner's convictions for kidnapping in the first degree because there was insufficient evidence to support that conviction. The Court reversed the conviction for burglary in the second degree because of prejudicial trial error. But the Court affirmed his conviction for criminal trespass in the first degree because the errors petitioner claimed were harmless. View "Washington v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The State prosecuted petitioner David Gower for sex crimes against his 17-year-old stepdaughter S.E.H. In accordance with ER 404(b) and RCW 10.58.090, the State offered evidence that petitioner had committed other similar crimes against two other alleged juvenile victims, C.M. (his biological daughter) and J.K. (another stepdaughter). In a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of that evidence, the trial court ruled it was all inadmissible under ER 404(b). But the trial court acknowledged that admissibility of that evidence under RCW 10.58.090 was a separate question and concluded that although the evidence of other sex offenses was inadmissible under ER 404(b), the evidence of the prior crimes relating to C.M. was admissible under RCW 10.58.090. In 2009, between the statute's enactment arid subsequent invalidation in 2012, the trial court admitted evidence of petitioner's prior sex offenses against him at trial. He was ultimately convicted. Because that evidence was improperly admitted and considered by the trial judge in finding petitioner guilty, the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Washington v. Gower" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a secretly recorded conversation between defendant William Kipp and his brother-in-law in violation of Washington's privacy act. Kipp was convicted of two counts of rape of a child and one count of child molestation in the second degree. Before trial, Kipp moved to suppress the recording, relying on the privacy act. The trial court ruled that the recording was not a private conversation and, therefore, not subject to suppression. A jury found Kipp guilty and he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that for purposes of the privacy act, when facts are undisputed, the question of whether a particular communication is private is a matter of law reviewed de novo. In this case, Kipp's conversation with his brother-in-law was private and therefore should have been suppressed. View "Washington v. Kipp" on Justia Law

In this case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction must be vacated even if it were shown that eavesdropping (an "odious practice" when done between an attorney and her client), did not result in any prejudice to the defendant. In this case, the police detective eavesdropped on attorney-client conversations after the trial was complete and the jury had found the defendant guilty. Thus, while the conduct was "unconscionable," there was no way for the eavesdropping to have any effect on the trial itself. Further, the prosecutor submitted a declaration stating that the detective on the case never communicated any information about the attorney-client conversations to the prosecution. Upon review of this case, the Supreme Court held that eavesdropping is presumed to cause prejudice to the defendant unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the eavesdropping did not result in any such prejudice. In this case, the record did not provide enough information to make this determination, and the Court remanded the case for additional discovery. View "Washington v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Petitioner Daniel Stockwell sought to withdraw his guilty plea to a 1986 charge of first-degree statutory rape. Petitioner's plea statement and judgment and sentence misstated the statutory maximum sentence. The Supreme Court held that in a personal restraint petition, a petitioner must show actual and substantial prejudice in a challenge to a guilty plea based on such a misstatement. Because petitioner failed to make this showing, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Stockwell" on Justia Law

Jonathan Lee Gentry was convicted for the 1991 aggravated first degree murder of 12-year-old Cassie Holden and sentenced to death by a jury. One of the issues he raised on appeal was a claim that the decision to pursue a capital case against him, and the trial that ensued, was unfairly tainted by the specter of racial bias on the part of the prosecution. The Supreme Court rejected that contention, concluding in part that Gentry had not shown prejudice resulting from any misconduct. The Court's recent decision in "Washington v. Monday," (257 P.3d 551 (2011)), held that when a party shows prosecutorial misconduct based on racial bias, it is the State's burden to show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Gentry brought a personal restraint petition in light of the Court's holding in "Monday." "While we believe the rule in Monday is critically important to our justice system, we conclude it does not qualify as a 'watershed' rule that can be applied retroactively." View "In re Pers. Restraint of Gentry" on Justia Law

Petitioner Stephen Johnson was arrested and convicted for driving on a suspended license (in the third degree). His license had been suspended for failing to pay a traffic fine. Johnson appealed his DWLS 3rd conviction, arguing: (1) the former RCW 46.20.342(1)(c)(iv) (2008) did not proscribe his continuing to drive after the suspension of his license for failing to pay a traffic fine; or alternatively, (2) that because he was indigent, the suspension was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses, which required the State to inquire into his ability to pay the fine before suspending his license. Furthermore, Johnson argued the trial court erred by denying him counsel to fight these charges, and wanted reimbursement for attorney fees spent in his defense. The Supreme Court rejected Johnson's arguments on appeal, but remanded the case for further proceedings to determine Johnson's right to reimbursement for attorney fees. The plain meaning of former RCW 46.20.342(1 )( c )(iv) allows the State to convict a driver for DWLS 3rd where the underlying license suspension occurred for failure to pay a fine. Johnson was not constitutionally indigent, but statutorily so; on remand, the Supreme Court instructed the district court to enter an order designating Johnson either as (1) indigent or (2) indigent and able to contribute. If Johnson is able to contribute, the district court would have to enter an order determining the costs he should bear for his appeal. View "Washington v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sione Lui was charged with second degree murder. This case presented the issue of when the confrontation clause requires testimony from laboratory analysts who conduct tests on evidence. DNA test results were admitted into evidence at Petitioner's trial, and he challenged that admission as violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that based on the trial court record, there was no violation of Petitioner's rights under the confrontation clause when DNA test results and temperature readings taken from the victim's body were admitted. However, Petitioner's confrontation rights were violated by the admission of the victim's postmortem toxicology results and several statements from the autopsy report. The Court deemed those admissions harmless. View "Washington v. Lui" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the proper scope of the effective law enforcement exemption of the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. The Seattle Police Department (SPD) used this exemption to justify withholding documents regarding the investigation of an altercation between petitioner Evan Sargent and an SPD officer. Sargent raised several challenges to the Court of Appeals decision which held that the exemption applied categorically to an investigation file where the prosecutor has declined to file charges and has referred the case back to the SPD for follow-up investigation and to information contained in an internal investigation file. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the exemption does not apply categorically to the requested criminal investigation information or to the requested internal investigation information. Further, although the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the exemption does not apply categorically to witness identification, it held that remand on this issue was not warranted. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the SPD properly withheld Sargent's nonconviction information under the Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act (CRPA), and that the Court of Appeals correctly remanded for reconsideration of penalties. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the appropriate penalty. View "Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether law enforcement officers must expressly advise a person of his or her right to refuse entry into a home (provide "Ferrier") warnings-when the officers seek to execute an arrest warrant. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that sheriffs deputies unlawfully entered Petitioner Dara Ruem's mobile home in an attempt to execute an arrest warrant for Ruem's brother, Chantha. The deputies lacked probable cause to believe Chantha was present, and Ruem revoked his initial consent to the entry. Thus, the evidence recovered from the search of the home was illegally obtained and unlawfully admitted. The Court held that Ferrier warnings were not required in this instance, though any consent obtained must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. View "Washington v. Ruem" on Justia Law