Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.


HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either or Lexis Advance.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 1 new published opinion, and Division Three filed no new published opinions but announced the publication of 2 opinions on Tuesday, July 15, 2014:

Division Two:

State v. Derenoff 
No. 44314-7  
(July 15, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1710 (

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1710 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The trial court did not err in revoking the insanity acquittee's conditional release because there was no statutory or due process requirement that the insanity acquittee be restored to competency before revocation of her conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.

Division Three:

1. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass'n
No. 31522-3  
(Filed May 22, 2014; ordered published July 15, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1293 (

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1293 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The Spokane Education Association is the exclusive bargaining representative for teachers and other certificated employees of Spokane School District No. 81. It appeals the trial court's decision enjoining its efforts to arbitrate a grievance that it filed against the district on behalf of a school counselor who was then a provisional employee, after the district decided not to renew her contract. The Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court that as framed, and given the relief requested by the grievance, it was not eligible for arbitration under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

2. State v. Hudlow
No. 31027-2 
(Filed May 13, 2014; ordered published July 15, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1210 (

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1210 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The Court of Appeals reverses the conviction of delivery of a controlled substance and remands for a new trial because the trial court admitted testimonial hearsay in violation of the confrontation clause and evidence rules. The hearsay was prejudicial because, based upon a jury instruction, the State needed to prove that defendant knew he was selling methamphetamine, not just a controlled substance, and the evidence as to defendant's knowledge of the nature of substance was not overwhelming. The court remands for a new trial, rather than dismissing the case, because there was sufficient evidence.

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.