Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 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 2 new published opinions, and Division Three of the Court of Appeals filed no new published opinions but ordered the publication of 1 opinion on Tuesday, October 28, 2014:
Division Two: 1. Dep't of Ecology v. Wahkiakum County No. 44700-2 (November 4, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 2622
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 2622
Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW
Brief: The Washington State Legislature has charged the Department of Ecology with executing the state's biosolids program to facilitate and encourage recycling, rather than disposal, of sewage waste. In 2011, Wahkiakum County passed an ordinance banning the use of the most common class of biosolids within the County. The County's ordinance conflicts with state law, and, thus, is unconstitutional under Const. art. XI, § 11.
2. State v. Espey No. 43737-6 (November 4, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 2627
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 2627
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: The first degree burglary conviction under RCW 9A.52.020(1)(b) was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The the State improperly commented on defendant's constitutional right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Const. art. I, § 22 because the State relied on his consultation with an attorney to discredit him.
State v. Alcantar-Maldonado No. 31259-3 (Filed July 3, 2014; ordered published November 4, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1654
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1654
Brief: Evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of first degree assault by use of a firearm under RCW 9A.36.011(1)(A) because any reasonable jury could conclude that he intended to cause the victim great bodily harm when he repeatedly struck the victim in the face with his hands, feet, and gun. Defendant's driver's license should not have been revoked on his conviction of first degree assault under RCW 46.20.285(4) because his use of the motor vehicle was merely incidental to his commission of the crime when he used the vehicle only for transportation to and from the scene where he committed the assault.
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@lexisnexis.com. 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.