Debra L. Stephens

In this case, siblings Dan Jr. and Carrie Barrett petitioned for nonparental custody of their two minor brothers, BJB and BNB, after the children had lived with them since 2003; the petition followed the parents' 1997 divorce, a 2001 custody modification involving an altercation and shooting that led to a permanent restraining order against the father, and his lack of contact with the children. The trial court found adequate cause, granted the nonparental custody petition after a hearing, limited the father's visitation until he completed a domestic violence program and counseling, and ordered him to pay child support plus $2,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the custody and visitation rulings, holding that the children were not in a parent's physical custody and would be detrimentally affected by returning to either parent under RCW 26.10.030 and related statutes. The court reversed the attorney fee award for lack of findings on the petitioners' financial need and remanded for redetermination of child support, federal tax exemptions, and fees consistent with statutory requirements.

family law

In State v. Babcock, Donald Ray Babcock was charged with first-degree child rape of his niece MB and first-degree child molestation of his niece AT, along with related counts. The trial court found both children competent to testify and admitted hearsay statements about AT's allegations, but dismissed the molestation charge mid-trial when AT refused to testify and denied a mistrial despite the prior admission of that hearsay evidence; the jury convicted Babcock on the rape charge. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial. The court reasoned that the highly prejudicial hearsay evidence regarding sexual abuse of AT, which was similar in nature to the remaining charges, could not be effectively disregarded by the jury even with a limiting instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dennis Patrick Bucknell's conviction for second degree rape of his sister, Michelle Mummert, who suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease and was bedridden but able to communicate. Bucknell appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the second degree rape charge, which requires the victim to be physically helpless. The court determined that Mummert's ability to speak and understand meant she did not qualify as physically helpless under the statute, making the evidence insufficient for second degree rape. It therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser charge of third degree rape, based on lack of consent.

criminal law

In this case, Jordan Knippling petitioned for relief from personal restraint after his 2003 convictions for second-degree assault and animal cruelty, seeking credit against his community custody term for 24 extra months of confinement he served before resentencing under Blakely v. Washington reduced his sentence to a standard range of 17 months. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, granted the petition. The court reasoned that under RCW 9.94A.715(1), the term of community custody begins upon completion of the term of confinement rather than actual release from prison, so Knippling's community custody started 24 months earlier than his release date. The court distinguished the tolling provision in RCW 9.94A.625(3), which applies after community custody has begun and does not control the start date.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Hector M. Prado's appeal of his conviction for first degree assault after he stabbed Daniel Guyer during a confrontation outside a bar in Wenatchee, Washington, following an earlier altercation at a lounge; Guyer later died from his wounds, and Prado was originally charged with second degree murder as well. Prado challenged the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense (including the lack of a duty to retreat) and the elements of assault, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, disputed the restitution order, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the instructions accurately stated the law, the prosecutor's statements did not improperly appeal to prejudice or patriotism, and no other errors occurred. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether a Pasco city ordinance prohibiting recreational vehicles used as permanent residences in mobile home parks was preempted by Washington's Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act. The City issued a violation notice to park owner Paul Lawson after a tenant occupied such a vehicle, the Code Enforcement Board upheld the notice, and a superior court reversed on preemption grounds. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, holding that the ordinance was a valid exercise of municipal authority. The court reasoned that the Act neither expressly nor by implication preempts the field of mobile home park regulation and creates no irreconcilable conflict with the ordinance, which can operate alongside the Act without inconsistency since the statute defers to local land-use rules.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Leonora Clarke's request for euthanasia logs from Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter (TCAC), a private corporation contracted to provide animal control services for several cities, under Washington's Public Disclosure Act. TCAC refused, arguing it was not a public agency subject to the Act, and the trial court agreed, denying Clarke's motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that TCAC qualifies as a public agency under the PDA based on the Telford balancing test, considering factors such as its performance of a core governmental function, public funding, and oversight by the interlocal animal control authority. The court remanded for further proceedings and denied attorney fees as premature.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. O'Hara, the defendant was charged with second-degree assault after an altercation involving a flashlight and a dispute over car keys, and he raised a self-defense claim at trial. The jury convicted him, but on appeal the court reversed the conviction. The core issue was that jury instruction 11 on self-defense was inadequate because it failed to properly define malice in the context of using force to prevent malicious interference with property. The court held that this omission prevented the jury from adequately considering the defendant's theory of the case. Other claims regarding confrontation rights and evidentiary sufficiency were rejected as meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nicholas Duckett's convictions for second degree rape and related charges following a jury trial in Spokane County Superior Court. During voir dire, the trial judge privately questioned selected jurors in chambers about their experiences with sexual abuse based on sealed questionnaires, without conducting the Bone-Club analysis required to justify closing proceedings or obtaining the defendant's waiver of his public trial right, though Duckett had waived his personal presence. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the procedure violated the defendant's right to a public trial under Article I, section 22 and the public's right under Article I, section 10 of the Washington Constitution. The core reasoning was that such closures of voir dire require a specific five-part analysis on the record before trial, which was absent here, and that post-hoc justifications or juror privacy rules like GR 31(j) do not excuse the failure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Wilson, who was convicted of second degree theft after being observed removing items from multiple stores including Wal-Mart, Fred Meyer, Staples, Michaels, and Rite-Aid. Wilson appealed, claiming violations of due process because he was absent from an in-chambers conference questioning a juror with prior employment at one of the victim stores, that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the juror for cause, that evidence was insufficient for conviction, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to lack of notification about the conference. The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed the conviction, ruling that Wilson had no due process right to attend the conference, the juror's responses indicated no bias or unique knowledge requiring removal, the evidence supported the theft charge, and any counsel deficiency caused no prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Laramie, the defendant appealed his convictions arising from a domestic violence incident in which he beat, confined, and raped the victim while preventing her from seeking help. The Court of Appeals reversed the second degree assault conviction, holding that the jury was instructed on an uncharged alternative means of committing the offense and that the information was improperly amended after trial to conform to the evidence. It affirmed the convictions for unlawful imprisonment, interfering with the reporting of domestic violence, and third degree rape, concluding that the charging document sufficiently alleged all essential elements of the interference offense and that the defendant suffered no prejudice from any deficiencies in the information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Charles Leon Wheeler's personal restraint petition challenging the Department of Corrections' reassessment of his risk classification from RM-C to RM-B after his 2004 convictions for first-degree possession of stolen property, second-degree malicious mischief, and second-degree theft, which rendered him ineligible for up to 50 percent earned early release under RCW 9.94A.728. The court granted the petitions, holding that DOC violated Wheeler's due process rights by changing the classification without providing notice of the reasons or an opportunity to challenge the facts relied upon. The core reasoning relied on the precedent in In re Adams requiring minimum due process protections for such reclassifications, found that these protections apply retroactively to ensure accurate factual bases for decisions, and noted that Wheeler's prior conviction for attempted residential burglary did not disqualify him under the statute.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Robert and Laura Haslett suing Juanita Planck for personal injuries sustained in a 2003 car accident. Two years earlier, the Hasletts had filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition but did not list their potential claim against Planck as an asset on their schedules. The superior court granted summary judgment to Planck and dismissed the suit, ruling that judicial estoppel barred the action because the Hasletts had taken an inconsistent position that the bankruptcy court had accepted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the elements of judicial estoppel were not satisfied: the Hasletts gained no advantage from the nondisclosure, Planck suffered no detriment, and the bankruptcy schedules had been amended to include the claim so that creditors could benefit from any recovery. The court also denied the bankruptcy trustee's motion to join, concluding that the Hasletts remained the real parties in interest.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Hibdon, the defendant pleaded guilty to delivery of marijuana and received a 60-month standard-range sentence of confinement, but the sentencing court omitted the 12 months of community placement required by former RCW 9.94A.120(9)(a). Hibdon later moved under CrR 7.8 to correct the sentence, arguing that adding community placement would require reducing his confinement term to keep the total within the 60-month statutory maximum. The Court of Appeals held that the original judgment was facially invalid because it lacked the mandated community placement term, reversed the denial of the motion, and remanded for resentencing. The court reasoned that the sentencing judge must be given the opportunity to impose the correct sentence structure, which could include either reducing confinement or imposing the statutory maximum with community placement limited to earned early release, while ensuring the total does not exceed the maximum.

criminal lawprocedure

Mark Davis, an African American salesman, sued his former employer West One Automotive Group under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliatory discharge, citing multiple racially charged comments by supervisors and coworkers, failure to properly recognize him as salesman of the month, and his termination shortly after using a company vehicle. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment dismissal. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the comments were severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment, whether the employer's stated reason for termination was pretextual, and whether Davis's complaints constituted protected activity supporting a retaliation claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Zink v. City of Mesa, Jeff and Donna Zink sued the City of Mesa alleging multiple violations of the Public Disclosure Act (PDA) in the City's handling of their 172 public records requests, which related to a building permit dispute and the Zinks' watchdog activities; the alleged violations included delays in responses, improper denials or redactions, excessive copying charges, and unreasonable limits on viewing time. The trial court made a general finding of substantial compliance by the City, concluded that the volume of requests made strict compliance impossible and amounted to unlawful harassment, and denied relief. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the PDA requires strict compliance with its provisions rather than substantial compliance, that the trial court failed to make specific findings on the alleged violations, and that the record did not support the harassment determination or the City's compliance, while directing the trial court to award attorney fees and consider penalties where violations are found.

free speechprocedure

This case involved Bryce M. Halsey, who was charged with first degree child rape after an incident with his girlfriend's three-year-old daughter and entered a guilty plea. Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend a standard-range sentence of 160 months, but the sentencing court instead imposed an exceptional sentence of 720 months based on findings of deliberate cruelty, the victim's extreme vulnerability due to her young age, and the defendant's abuse of a position of trust. Halsey appealed, arguing that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by submitting a victim's impact letter, that the exceptional sentence was improper, and that a later amended restitution order adding counseling costs was untimely. The court affirmed the plea, sentence, and restitution order, holding that the prosecutor's conduct did not breach the agreement, the sentence was supported by valid aggravating factors, and the restitution could be modified because Halsey remained under the court's jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure