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.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
To view the full text of these opinions, please visit:http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/t/hovA0FbARc0FuK0gwC0EUor Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on Lexis.com
Supreme Court:1. Anthis v. Copland No. 85230-8 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 157Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWPERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAWBrief: A retiree's Law Enforcement Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement System pension money can be garnished after it has been deposited into the retiree's personal bank account; i.e., the LEOFF exemption statute does not exempt retirement funds from garnishment after they have been paid to the retiree.2. Cary v. Mason County No. 83937-9 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 364
Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWPROPERTY AND LAND USE LAWBrief: The special assessment on nonforest lands within a county conservation district is an invalid tax under RCW 89.08.400(3).3. State v. Budik No. 84714-2 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 155Areas: CRIMINAL LAWBrief: The evidence does not support the conviction of first degree rendering criminal assistance. In order to prove that a defendant rendered criminal assistance "by use of . . . deception," RCW 9A.76.050(4), the State must show that the defendant made some affirmative act or statement. Mere false disavowal of knowledge is insufficient to sustain a conviction of rendering criminal assistance. There was no evidence that the defendant did more than falsely deny knowledge of the identities of the assailants who had shot him and shot and killed his companion. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to convict.4. State v. Irish No. 86416-1 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 153Areas: CRIMINAL LAWBrief: The State is not required to prove the constitutional validity of prior convictions used to calculate a defendant's offender score on a current conviction. And a criminal defendant generally has no right to contest the validity of a previous conviction in connection with a current sentencing.5. State v. Tracer No. 84452-6 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 154Areas: COURTSCRIMINAL LAWBrief: The superior court may appoint an attorney to replace any special prosecuting attorney, but the appointed attorney was not qualified to serve as a prosecuting attorney due to a conflict of interest. The de facto official doctrine does not save the appointment. Remand of the defendant's case does not place the defendant in double jeopardy, but the case is not required to be remanded to a different trial judge. While the State alleged that the judge exhibited "continued animosity toward the State and bias in favor of [the defendant]," there is no evidence in the record to support this allegation. Contrary to the State's claim, the judge did not keep "identifying dismissal of charges as the alternative response" for the prosecutor's absence. Instead, the judge stated, "[e]ither [the defendant] goes to trial or he pleads to a lesser charge, or it gets dismissed, and I certainly wasn't about to dismiss it."6. State v. Zilyette No. 86415-2 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. LEXIS 156Areas: CRIMINAL LAWBrief: When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal, the court must first determine the adequacy of the charging language before considering whether the defendant suffered any prejudice. The court must first determine whether the necessary facts appear or can be found by fair construction. If so, the court then inquires into whether the defendant was nonetheless prejudiced by the unartful language used in the information. If the necessary elements cannot be found or fairly implied, prejudice is presumed and reversal is necessary.Court of Appeals: 1. State v. Zigan No. 29464-1 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 331Areas: CRIMINAL LAWBrief: The State did not fail to prove egregious lack of remorse beyond a reasonable doubt, the RCW 9.94A.535(3)(t) rapid recidivism language is not unconstitutionally vague, and the defendant's exceptional sentence is supported by compelling reasons.2. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Co. v. Shannon No. 29766-7 (February 16, 2012) 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 328Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAWBrief: All of the plaintiff's claims arising from the ending of its commercial relationship with the defendant were properly dismissed, including claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with a business expectancy, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
Tell a Friend About Washington Heads Up -Pass along this HeadsUp Alert to your colleagues. They can register online to receive the next headsup directly from LexisNexis.
To stop receiving this communication, use this link.
For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com HeadsUp is brought to you by LexisNexis®
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.