Tuesday, October 8, 2013 To view the full text of these opinions, please click here. Lexis.com® subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on lexis.com. Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 4 new published opinions and Division Three filed no new opinions on Tuesday, October 8, 2013:
1. Kadlec Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health
(October 8, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2409
Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Brief: The hospital applied to the Department of Health to increase its capacity by up to 114 beds. The Department issued a certificate of need (CN) authorizing the addition of only 55 beds. A health law judge dismissed the hospital’s adjudicative challenge to that CN, which the superior court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reverses the superior court's decision affirming the dismissal and remands for an adjudicative hearing because the hospital’s application clearly focused on a 114-bed request, with two other scenarios seeking fewer beds as essentially secondary alternatives. Thus, the Department's grant of the 55-bed CN functioned as the denial of the hospital’s 114-bed CN request.
2. In re Pers. Restraint of Faircloth
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2408
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: The personal restraint petition is time barred. The petitioner’s newly recovered memories are not newly discovered evidence because the memories would not probably change the result of his trial.
3. State v. Berg / State v. Reed
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2413
Brief: The trial court did not violate the defendants’ public trial rights because no courtroom closure occurred when undercover officers, without the trial judge’s knowledge or authorization, excluded an observer from the courtroom. Further, any courtroom operations error was harmless. However, defendants’ kidnapping convictions are vacated for insufficient evidence based on application of the incidental restraint doctrine.
4. State v. McWilliams
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2407
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: The Court of Appeals affirms the defendant’s second degree assault convictions and sentence, rejecting his arguments that (1) the trial court erred by improperly admitting testimony as prior consistent statements under ER 801, (2) the sentencing court erred by ordering forfeiture of property and imposing improper community custody conditions, (3) insufficient evidence supports the convictions, (4) defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for dismissal of the second degree assault charge, and (5) the trial court erred in admitting a 911 tape because it violated defendant’s confrontation rights.
About HeadsUp: Register online to opt-in to receive future issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.