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.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance. The Supreme Court of Washington filed 2 new opinions on Wednesday, December 24, 2014: 1. State v. Davis / State v. Nelson / State v. Davis No. 89448-5 (December 24, 2014) 2014 Wash. LEXIS 1150 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 1150 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: Defendants were improperly convicted of unlawful possession of a stolen firearm under RCW 9A.56.310 and unlawful possession of a firearm under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a) because the evidence showed that, at most, they had only passing control of the firearm and never asserted any interest in it, and there was no evidence of consent to bring the firearm into the home or of a nexus between the home and the firearm. An exceptional sentence could not be imposed for rendering criminal assistance under RCW 9A.76.050(4) on the basis of the aggravating factor that the crime involved a destructive and foreseeable impact on persons other than the victim under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(r) because the "victim" of the crime was the general public and, consequently, there could be no "other" who could be impacted by the crime.
2. In re Pers. Restraint of McWilliams No. 88883-3 (December 24, 2014) 2014 Wash. LEXIS 1149 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 1149 (Lexis Advance)
Brief: In a second degree assault case, a personal restraint petition was granted because the combined term of confinement and community custody exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense under RCW 9.94A.505(5). RCW 9.94A.701(9) did not apply because it applied to terms of confinement imposed within the standard range, and an exceptional sentence was imposed in this case. A notation on the judgment and sentence explicitly stating that the combination of confinement and community custody would not exceed the statutory maximum satisfied RCW 9.94A.505(5).
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.