Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Emery
Washington Supreme Court · 2012-06-14 · cited 1088×
This case involved the joint trial and convictions of Anthony Emery and Aaron Olson for first degree kidnapping, robbery, rape, and accomplice rape based on evidence that they abducted a woman from a Walgreens parking lot, forced her to perform oral sex at gunpoint, and threatened her afterward; DNA evidence and victim identifications linked each defendant to the crimes. On appeal, the defendants raised issues including Olson's denied motions to sever the trials due to allegedly antagonistic defenses, claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments regarding the burden of proof, Emery's motion for mistrial based on Olson's outbursts, and cumulative error. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the defenses were not mutually antagonistic, any improper statements by the prosecutor were not incurable and did not prejudice the verdict given the strong evidence and jury instructions, the outbursts did not warrant a mistrial, and there was no cumulative error requiring reversal.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. KOSEWICZ
Washington Supreme Court · 2012-06-07 · cited 22×
This case consolidated appeals from two defendants, Robert Brown and Theodore Kosewicz, who were convicted after separate trials for their roles in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of Sebastian Esquibel in Washington. Brown was convicted of first degree kidnapping and felony murder predicated on that kidnapping, while Kosewicz was convicted of first degree kidnapping and aggravated first degree murder with the kidnapping as the aggravating factor. On appeal, both defendants' kidnapping convictions were reversed due to a charging defect that improperly limited the charged alternative means, but the Court of Appeals upheld Brown's felony murder conviction and Kosewicz's aggravating factor. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed those murder-related results, holding that reversal of the predicate kidnapping convictions did not require reversal of the felony murder conviction or aggravating factor because the underlying elements and notice requirements were satisfied under applicable precedent.
criminal lawprocedure
Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Railway Co.
Washington Supreme Court · 2012-05-31 · cited 38×
The case arose when a fire started by defendants' rail grinding operations on their own property spread to plaintiff's adjoining land and destroyed trees, prompting a timber trespass claim for treble damages under former RCW 64.12.030. The U.S. District Court certified the question whether the statute permits recovery when defendants' acts or omissions were not directed at plaintiff's trees, did not occur on plaintiff's land, and involved only indirect damage via fire spread. The Washington Supreme Court answered no, holding that the statute requires a defendant to directly cut down, girdle, injure, or carry off trees on another's land. Its reasoning examined the statutory text and history, which targeted voluntary or negligent direct trespasses rather than indirect harm from negligence, and distinguished the provision from separate statutes addressing fire damage.
propertytorts & liability
Jongeward v. BNSF Railway Co.
Washington Supreme Court · 2012-05-31 · cited 82×
The case concerned whether BNSF Railway could be held liable under Washington's former timber trespass statute (RCW 64.12.030) after a negligently started fire on its property spread to the Jongewards' land and destroyed about 4,000 trees. The U.S. District Court certified three questions to the Washington Supreme Court asking whether negligent fire damage constitutes "otherwise injur[ing]" trees under the statute, whether recovery is possible when the defendant was never physically present on the plaintiffs' property, and whether damages must be reasonable in relation to the land's value. The court reviewed the statute's text, 1869 origins, and 1877 reenactment, noting its purposes of punishing voluntary offenders and authorizing treble damages for direct trespasses such as cutting or girdling trees. It interpreted the provision in conjunction with the single-damages exception for casual or involuntary acts and considered whether indirect negligent causation without physical entry falls within the statute's scope.
propertytorts & liability
Gendler v. Batiste
Washington Supreme Court · 2012-04-12 · cited 17×
This case concerned a public records request by Michael Gendler to the Washington State Patrol for location-specific police accident reports involving bicycles on the Montlake Bridge. The WSP refused to release the records without a certification that they would not be used in litigation against the state, citing protection under the federal statute 23 U.S.C. § 409, which shields certain data compiled for federal highway safety programs. Gendler sued under Washington's Public Records Act, and the trial court granted summary judgment ordering production of the reports. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the reports were generated and maintained by the WSP pursuant to its independent state statutory duty under RCW 46.52.060 rather than for federal purposes, so the federal privilege did not apply.
procedurefederal power
In Re Carter
Washington Supreme Court · 2011-10-20 · cited 26×
In the case In re Carter, the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the actual innocence doctrine to consider an untimely personal restraint petition filed by Ernest Carter challenging his persistent offender sentence based on a prior out-of-state conviction. The court decided to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling that vacated Carter's sentence, remanding the case instead. The core reasoning was that the Court of Appeals erred by invoking the actual innocence doctrine before first evaluating Carter's other asserted exceptions to the one-year time bar for personal restraint petitions under RCW 10.73.090 and .100.
criminal lawprocedure