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

The case involved landowners suing the State of Washington for inverse condemnation after their property adjacent to a state penitentiary was rezoned from agricultural to residential use in 2004. The plaintiffs alleged that ongoing noise from the penitentiary's firing range, which had operated for decades, destroyed the property's value for residential development. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that no compensable taking occurred because the noise was a preexisting condition that predated both the rezoning and the owners' acquisition of the property, and only the potential use of the land—not any new government action—had changed.

property

The case involved the conviction of Yasin Ahmed Ibrahim, a lawful permanent resident alien, for possessing a firearm under a former Washington statute that required non-citizens to register firearms, a requirement not imposed on citizens. Ibrahim was arrested after a police frisk uncovered a revolver during an investigation of a suspicious vehicle, and he challenged both the search and the constitutionality of the statute on equal protection and Second Amendment grounds. The trial court upheld the conviction based on stipulated facts, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated equal protection by imposing unequal burdens on legal aliens without sufficient justification. The court dismissed the prosecution, noting the statute had already been repealed in 2009. The decision focused on the discriminatory classification rather than addressing the underlying search issues in detail.

criminal lawgunscivil rights

In P.E. Systems, LLC v. CPI Corp., a vendor sued a client for breach of contract after providing credit card processing cost analysis services and the client refused to pay the agreed 50% share of realized savings. The trial court granted the client's CR 12(c) motion to dismiss on the pleadings, ruling the contract was an unenforceable agreement to agree because the parties never completed Addendum A to set the client's Historic Cost baseline. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the agreement's formula for calculating Historic Cost and savings provided sufficient certainty to form a binding contract, that the blank addendum could be severed, and that the client breached by using the plan without payment; it remanded for entry of judgment on liability and proceedings on damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Santos, the defendant was charged with felony DUI based on four or more prior offenses within ten years, and the State introduced certified copies of prior DUI judgments and related documents to prove that element. The trial court admitted the documents over objection and entered judgment on the jury's guilty verdict for felony DUI. The Court of Appeals reversed the felony conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to produce independent evidence—such as photographs, fingerprints, or other identifying information—linking the person named in the prior judgments to the defendant in the courtroom. Under Washington law, when criminal liability depends on the accused being the same person named in a document, the State must prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt rather than relying solely on the documents themselves. The court therefore remanded for entry of a conviction on the lesser gross misdemeanor DUI charge.

criminal law

This case involves a survival action brought by the estate of Sandra Wilson, a physician who died after receiving treatment for symptoms at Sunnyside Hospital from Dr. Terri Grant, whom the estate claimed was an apparent agent of the hospital. The superior court dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding no recovery possible because Wilson had no surviving spouse, children, or other statutorily designated beneficiaries. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Washington's survival statutes the estate could pursue economic damages from the alleged medical negligence regardless of the absence of beneficiaries who might claim noneconomic damages, and that material issues of fact existed regarding whether Dr. Grant was an apparent agent of the hospital, precluding summary dismissal on that ground as well.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute between Ammex and Jensen over a right of first offer in a 1992 deed for property in Oroville, Washington. Jensen subdivided the property and negotiated a sale of one lot to third parties before offering it to Ammex, contrary to the deed's terms requiring an offer to Ammex first. The trial court granted summary judgment to Jensen, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Jensen breached the right of first offer by failing to offer the entire premises to Ammex before third parties and by offering at a different price. The court concluded that issues of fact remained and remanded for trial.

property

The case concerned whether Kim Turnbow, who left a job at an insurance group and began forming her own insurance agency while seeking other work, remained eligible for unemployment benefits under Washington law. The Employment Security Department denied benefits on grounds that her self-employment venture was not contingent and she was unavailable for work, a decision affirmed by an ALJ, the agency commissioner, and the superior court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard by treating self-employment as automatically disqualifying full-time work rather than evaluating it as a factual question under the factors from Kenna v. Department of Employment Security. The court found no substantial evidence that Turnbow was self-employed full time or that her start-up was non-contingent, as she devoted time to job searches, earned no income from the venture, and secured independent contractor work before the business opened.

labor & employment

In State v. Contreras, the defendant was convicted of possessing a stolen motor vehicle after acquiring a car reported stolen in 2004, repainting it, and attempting to relicense it under false VINs in 2007; he was also subject to a one-year driver's license suspension because a vehicle was used in the felony. The court affirmed the conviction and suspension, holding that the three-year statute of limitations had not expired because possession of stolen property is a continuing offense that persists as long as the defendant retains or possesses the item. It further reasoned that the statutory language defining the crime as knowingly receiving, retaining, or possessing stolen property supported treating the offense as ongoing until the charging date, and that driving the vehicle to attempt relicensing constituted "use" of the car in commission of the crime under the license-suspension statute.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case concerned Javier Chavez's appeal from a trial court order denying his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to multiple counts of violating a no-contact order. After his original attorney withdrew over a potential conflict of interest stemming from earlier advice given to a witness, substitute counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the motion lacked merit and did not pursue any conflict-related arguments. The Court of Appeals held that substitute counsel's failure to investigate or develop the conflict claim amounted to ineffective assistance, and it remanded the case for further proceedings on the motion to withdraw the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Chelan County and the Chelan County Deputy Sheriff's Association over whether a memorandum of understanding settling a grievance regarding the termination of Deputy Dale England constituted a binding contract. The superior court ruled that the memorandum was not enforceable and dismissed the county's action to enforce it. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the question of whether the memorandum created an enforceable agreement must be decided through arbitration under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that the CBA's broad arbitration provisions cover disputes over the interpretation and application of agreements related to grievances, and there is a strong presumption in favor of arbitrating such labor disputes.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the conviction of Brandon Coristine for second degree rape under Washington law, based on allegations that the victim was incapable of consent due to intoxication and physical helplessness. Coristine admitted to the sexual encounter but claimed the victim was fully conscious, initiated the acts, and was capable of consent; he objected to a jury instruction on the statutory affirmative defense that he reasonably believed she was not incapacitated. The trial court overruled the objection and gave the instruction, after which the jury found Coristine guilty. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the instruction, it was consistent with the defense theories presented, and any potential error was harmless because the jury had already determined the victim was incapable of consent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two children, A.G. and L.S., after the state took custody in 2005 and alleged unfitness due to neglect, drug abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's termination order and remanded for further proceedings. It held that due process requires an explicit or implicit finding of current parental unfitness before terminating rights, and the record here did not support implying such a finding because the trial court's own findings showed the mother had a healthy relationship with the children, her chemical dependency was in remission, and her other issues did not clearly impair her parenting ability.

family law

The case involved Anjelia Neuson, a Macy's employee, suing the company for retaliation, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination after she returned from medical leave related to a workplace injury. Macy's moved to compel arbitration under its Solutions InSTORE program, asserting it had mailed opt-out election forms to Neuson in 2003 and 2004 and that she had electronically acknowledged receiving materials when transferring stores in 2006. The trial court applied a presumption of mailing, found the evidence sufficient to bind Neuson to arbitration, and stayed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reversed, concluding that Neuson's evidence of non-receipt rebutted the presumption and created a factual dispute that could not be resolved by weighing evidence in a summary proceeding, requiring remand for trial on whether the parties agreed to arbitration.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a patient's medical negligence claim against a general surgeon and his practice after a subtotal thyroidectomy allegedly caused permanent vocal cord paralysis due to improper use of electrocautery near the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the suit because the plaintiff's two expert witnesses, who were otolaryngologists rather than general surgeons and did not perform subtotal thyroidectomies, declined to opine on the specific standard of care for general surgeons. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that expert testimony is admissible if the witnesses demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the medical condition and its surgical management, even without matching the defendant's exact specialty, and that the experts' statements that the technique fell below the standard for any surgeon were adequate to create a triable issue. The court reasoned that Washington law focuses on the substance of the experts' knowledge rather than formal credentials or precise terminology, and any gaps in their experience go to the weight of the evidence for the jury.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare