Debra L. Stephens

This case concerned a dispute over coverage under a builders' risk insurance policy for damage from the collapse of a newly poured concrete floor during a condominium construction project in Tacoma, Washington. The collapse was attributed to a combination of marginal shoring design and installation problems, which the policy excluded as faulty workmanship, but the policy also contained an ensuing or resulting loss provision. The trial court entered judgment for the insured after a jury verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of efficient proximate cause. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that coverage existed under the resulting loss clause because the collapse itself was not an excluded event and the insurer was barred from raising a new ground for denial. The court reinstated the trial court's judgment and awarded attorney fees to the insured.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The principal issue in these consolidated cases was whether certifications from state agencies attesting to the existence or nonexistence of public records, such as driving records, constitute testimonial statements under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The court determined that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts rendered such certifications testimonial, requiring the opportunity for confrontation, and therefore overruled its prior contrary holdings in State v. Kirkpatrick and State v. Kronich. In application, the admission of these certifications violated the defendants' confrontation rights in the cases of Jasper, Cienfuegos, and Moimoi. The court concluded that the violations were not harmless with respect to most convictions and accordingly reversed those convictions while remanding for new trials, except for the hit-and-run conviction in State v. Jasper.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Harry Carrier's untimely personal restraint petition challenging his mandatory life sentence under Washington's Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) two-strikes provision, based on his 2004 guilty plea to first-degree child molestation. Carrier argued that his 1981 indecent liberties conviction, which had been dismissed under former RCW 9.95.240, was improperly counted as a qualifying strike offense in his criminal history. The Washington Supreme Court held that the 1985 dismissal order attached to the petition could be considered in assessing whether the judgment and sentence was valid on its face, allowing review despite the one-year time bar. The court concluded that a dismissed conviction cannot be included as a POAA strike, rendering the life sentence invalid.

criminal law

This case concerned a personal restraint petition filed by Washington inmate Chad Pierce challenging the Department of Corrections' deductions from his inmate trust account for costs of incarceration and legal financial obligations (LFOs), despite the sentencing court's waiver of incarceration costs and a payment schedule for LFOs tied to his release. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Department possesses independent statutory authority under provisions like RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 to make such deductions regardless of the judgment and sentence terms. The court further ruled that the Department may collect LFOs during confinement without issuing a notice of payroll deduction beforehand. It therefore dismissed the petition, concluding Pierce failed to demonstrate unlawful restraint.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by David Moeller against Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, claiming that the auto insurance policy required payment for the diminished market value of a vehicle after it was damaged in an accident and repaired. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the policy language covers diminished value and that the class was properly certified. The court reasoned that the policy's provisions for "loss" and limits of liability, including repair or replacement with property of "like kind and quality," encompass compensation for the reduction in value post-repair, not merely the cost of physical repairs.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether evidence of cocaine possession against Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros should be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search of his brother's home and subsequent use of the brother's seized cell phone. Officers answered the cell phone, arranged a meeting, followed Ibarra-Cisneros, and recovered a bindle of cocaine near him; both brothers sought suppression in a consolidated hearing, but the trial court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals held the home search illegal and reversed the brother's conviction but affirmed Ibarra-Cisneros's on grounds that any connection was too attenuated. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the attenuation analysis was inadequate and that the brothers' suppression claims had been treated as rising or falling together without separate findings on issues such as Terry stops or open-view seizure.

criminal lawprocedure

In this personal restraint petition, Demar Rhome challenged his murder conviction on the grounds that the state and federal constitutions require an independent competency determination before allowing a defendant with mental health issues to waive counsel and represent himself, and that the trial court's colloquy was insufficient to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no such separate competency finding is mandated and that the trial court's acceptance of the waiver was not an abuse of discretion. The court reasoned that precedents like Faretta v. California and Indiana v. Edwards establish only that a waiver must be knowing and intelligent, without requiring additional mental health inquiries beyond the general presumption of competency to stand trial. It further found that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that Rhome understood the risks of self-representation, even without explicit discussion of his psychiatric history during the colloquy.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gordon, John Gordon and Charles Bukovsky were each charged with second degree murder in the beating death of Brian Lewis, and the State sought aggravating sentencing factors of deliberate cruelty and the victim's particular vulnerability. The jury convicted the defendants and found the aggravators applied after receiving instructions that stated the required elements but did not further define those terms; the defendants did not object to the instructions at trial and received exceptional sentences. The Court of Appeals vacated the sentences, holding that the failure to define the aggravators was a manifest constitutional error reviewable for the first time on appeal. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the instructional omission was not a manifest error of constitutional magnitude under RAP 2.5(a) because the instructions properly informed the jury of the applicable law without prejudice to the defendants, and therefore the claim could not be raised for the first time on appeal; the court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a marital dissolution proceeding in which the parties had stipulated to equally divide community stock options received by the husband during the marriage, with each party retaining the right to decide when to exercise their share. Before the final decree was entered, the husband secretly exercised all of the options, sold the stock, and concealed his actions from both the wife and the court. Upon discovering the fraud, the wife sought relief from the decree under CR 60(b), and the trial court awarded her damages equal to the present value of her share of the options as determined by her expert witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its equitable discretion to compensate the wife for the loss of the options that no longer existed.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves a medical malpractice claim by Lisa Unruh against her orthodontist, Dr. Dino Cacchiotti, alleging that negligent orthodontic treatment she received as a minor caused root resorption leading to tooth loss and implant surgery. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on statute of limitations grounds under RCW 4.16.350, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the statute of limitations nor the eight-year statute of repose barred the claim. The court reasoned that the 2006 amendments eliminating tolling for minors in medical malpractice cases and adding the statute of repose do not apply retroactively to Unruh's claim, which accrued before the legislation, and that tolling during her minority preserved the timeliness of her 2007 filing. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of the effective dates and scope of the 2006 changes to RCW 4.16.350 and RCW 4.16.190.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a personal injury claim by Maureen Blair against TravelCenters of America after she slipped and fell on gasoline in a parking lot, allegedly causing hip issues that prevented her from working. The trial court sanctioned Blair by excluding most of her witnesses for late disclosure and granted summary judgment to the defendant, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the discovery sanction without making an on-the-record finding explaining its decision, as required by prior precedent in Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Barber, the defendant entered a guilty plea to felony DUI under an agreement that omitted the statutorily required 9-to-18-month term of community custody; after sentencing, the error was discovered and the state moved to correct the judgment. Barber sought specific performance of the original agreement to avoid the community-custody term, relying on the earlier decision in State v. Miller that had allowed enforcement of plea terms despite contrary statutes. The Washington Supreme Court held that specific performance of a plea agreement entitles a defendant only to the state's promised recommendation and does not require a court to impose an illegal sentence. The court overruled Miller as incorrect and harmful, concluding that a sentencing court retains discretion to follow the law even when the state recommends otherwise, and therefore affirmed the imposition of the mandatory community-custody term.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Washington attorney Paul King, who in 2008 pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud charges arising from helping an individual obtain fraudulent unemployment benefits and was sentenced to prison and restitution. The Washington State Bar Association's Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment based on the conviction and King's prior suspensions for dishonesty, and the hearing officer found violations of professional conduct rules with aggravating factors but no mitigators. King challenged the proceedings' fairness, arguing for disqualification of disciplinary counsel due to alleged ex parte contacts, improper handling of the hearing transcript, and that his conviction should not bind him because he was denied an Alford plea. The Supreme Court of Washington rejected these arguments as unsubstantiated or without legal support, holding that the guilty plea provided conclusive evidence of misconduct under the enforcement rules and that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court ordered King's disbarment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Seattle Times and a requester seeking public records under Washington's Public Records Act related to the police investigation of Maurice Clemmons's shooting of four officers, while alleged accomplices in pending criminal cases moved to block release and seal trial exhibits to protect their fair trial rights. The trial court issued orders exempting the investigative records from production and sealing exhibits from one accomplice's trial. The Washington Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus vacating both orders, reasoning that the PRA's exemption provision does not permit withholding based solely on a judicial finding of likely prejudice to a fair trial, that the investigative records exemption did not apply, and that the sealing failed to satisfy the required Ishikawa factors for restricting public access to court records.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case concerned whether a statute prohibiting sexual misconduct by school employees with students applied to an 18-year-old registered student. The Washington Supreme Court held that former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) criminalizes sexual intercourse between school employees and registered students who are at least 16 years old, including those 18 and older. The court reasoned that the statute's specific language regarding registered students at least sixteen years old, along with references to education laws allowing attendance up to age 21, controlled over the title's reference to "minor." Additionally, the court determined that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate equal protection.

criminal law

This case involved a personal injury claim by Tambra Curtis against farm owners Jack and Claire Lein after she fell through a wooden dock on the property and suffered a leg fracture. The Leins had the dock destroyed shortly after the incident, leaving no direct evidence of its condition or any defects at the time of the accident. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to infer negligence. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that Curtis could rely on res ipsa loquitur at trial because the injury was of a type that would not ordinarily occur absent negligence, the defendants had exclusive control over the dock, and the dock's destruction prevented Curtis from accessing evidence of its condition.

torts & liability

Justice Richard B. Sanders sued the Washington Attorney General's office under the Public Records Act after the office responded to his request for records about his visit to the Special Commitment Center and a related judicial conduct inquiry by producing some documents and claiming exemptions for others without explaining how the exemptions applied or producing all nonexempt records. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the failure to provide a brief explanation of claimed exemptions violated the PRA and must be treated as an aggravating factor when calculating penalties for any wrongful withholding of nonexempt documents. The court further held that the trial court had correctly interpreted the work product privilege in the context of PRA exemptions but did not reach the attorney-client privilege issue.

procedure

In State v. Valencia, petitioners were convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and conspiracy, and at sentencing received a community custody condition barring possession or use of any paraphernalia that could be used for ingestion, processing, sale, or transfer of controlled substances, with examples like scales and pagers. The Court of Appeals held that their vagueness challenge was not ripe because they were still incarcerated and had not yet been harmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the claim was ripe under the test from State v. Bahl because it presented primarily legal issues that did not require further factual development and the sentencing condition was final, and that the condition was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to specify the required intent or connection to controlled substances, creating a risk of arbitrary enforcement. The court held the condition void and remanded for resentencing.

criminal law

The case involved Laura Holden, who held a renter's insurance policy from Farmers Insurance that covered property damage from fire at actual cash value, defined as fair market value at the time of loss, with payments not to exceed the amount needed to repair or replace the property. After a fire damaged her belongings, Farmers calculated her payout without including Washington state sales tax, leading Holden to sue for a declaration that sales tax must be factored into the fair market value under the policy's actual cash value provision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Holden, finding the term ambiguous due to Farmers' varying calculation methods, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's ruling, holding that the ambiguous policy language must be construed in favor of the insured to include sales tax in the valuation. The core reasoning centered on the policy's lack of definition for fair market value and the multiple reasonable interpretations of how to calculate it under the actual cash value provision.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved disciplinary charges against Washington attorney John Scannell arising from two matters: alleged conflicts of interest in representing multiple clients without obtaining required written informed consent, and failure to cooperate with a Bar investigation into whether he aided a suspended lawyer's practice. The hearing officer found negligent conflicts violations warranting minor sanctions but knowing non-cooperation violations warranting suspension; on review, the Disciplinary Board determined the non-cooperation was intentional and recommended disbarment. The Washington Supreme Court adopted the Board's recommendation and disbarred Scannell, holding that his repeated delays, refusals to appear or produce documents, and frivolous motions obstructed the disciplinary process and posed a serious threat to lawyer self-regulation.

criminal lawprocedure