Dennis J. Sweeney

In State v. Higgins, the defendant was convicted of third degree rape after an incident in which the victim repeatedly said 'stop' and struggled during sexual intercourse following a camping trip where both had been drinking. The defendant argued on appeal that due process required the jury to be instructed that the victim's lack of consent must have been clearly expressed from the defendant's perspective, and that the trial judge's instructions about certain exhibits amounted to an improper comment on the evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected both claims, holding that the statutory language does not impose a subjective perspective requirement and that the judge's statements, accompanied by curative instructions, did not convey any personal opinion on the merits. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Trinity Universal Insurance Company's attempt to recover payments made under a landlord's fire insurance policy after a tenant's husband accidentally started a fire that damaged a multi-unit apartment building. The court addressed whether the tenant and her husband could be considered coinsureds under the policy, which would bar the insurer's equitable subrogation claim against them. Following the Sutton rule adopted in Washington, the court held that tenants are presumed to be coinsureds with their landlord absent an express contrary provision in the lease, and thus not subject to subrogation. The court extended this protection to the husband because the lease benefited the marital community and he was present in the apartment with the tenant's consent. The court affirmed the trial court's summary dismissal of the insurer's suit.

propertytorts & liabilityfamily law

In State v. Shepard, the defendant was convicted of third degree assault after throwing his former girlfriend into furniture during an altercation, resulting in her serious injuries. The court considered whether the furniture qualified as an "instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm" under RCW 9A.36.031(1)(d). Relying on the Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Marohl, the Court of Appeals held that fixed objects like furniture do not meet the statutory requirement unless used similarly to a weapon, leading to the reversal of the third degree assault conviction. The ruling emphasized that the statute focuses on objects inherently or contextually like weapons, excluding scenarios where the victim is merely thrown against stationary items.

criminal law

In this post-dissolution dispute, divorced parents Danial Newlon and Nicole Alexander disagreed over the disposition of their deceased son's remains, with Newlon seeking cremation and relocation to Tennessee while Alexander favored burial in Spokane. Following the parties' stipulation to jurisdiction and judicial assignment in the Spokane County Superior Court dissolution proceeding, the trial court held a hearing and ordered burial in a public Spokane cemetery without cremation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the superior court retained continuing equitable jurisdiction over post-dissolution matters under Washington law, that the parties' stipulation confirmed this authority, and that the order was a proper exercise of that jurisdiction rather than void or irregular under CR 60(b). The court therefore upheld denial of the motion to vacate the burial order.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Mary Bryson Baechler’s lawsuit against two veterinarians, Drs. Tony Smith and Michelle Beaunaux, after they examined her ill mare, diagnosed spasmodic colic, recommended euthanasia, and left drugs for her to administer, which she did about an hour later. Baechler sued for veterinary malpractice, outrage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, but the trial court denied her motion to continue the summary judgment hearing for depositions and dismissed all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because Baechler provided no affidavit or indication of what relevant evidence the depositions would yield. It further held that summary judgment was proper because Baechler failed to present expert evidence establishing the veterinarians’ breach of the standard of care or that any such breach proximately caused the horse’s death, as required for professional negligence claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Cleary, the defendant was convicted by a Grant County jury of third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and obstructing a law enforcement officer after an altercation at a tavern. On appeal, she argued for the first time that the jury selection process was flawed because the questionnaire asked about Department of Corrections supervision rather than restoration of civil rights, potentially allowing a felon (Juror 7) to serve in violation of RCW 2.36.070. The court held that any such error was not manifest constitutional error implicating the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, as statutory juror disqualification does not automatically violate constitutional protections, and that the defendant invited the error by expressly agreeing to the questionnaire and declining further inquiry into the jurors. The convictions were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights