Monday, June 9, 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.
Division One of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new published opinions and announced the publication of 1 additional opinion on Monday, June 9, 2014:
1. State v. Magnano No. 70017-1
(June 9, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1388 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1388 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: A jury's rehearing of properly admitted recorded evidence in a closed courtroom during deliberations implicates no public trial right.
2. State v. Mollet No. 71433-3 (June 9, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1379 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1379 (Lexis Advance)
Brief: The State did not violate defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; the State presented sufficient evidence that she rendered criminal assistance by concealing the killer of the police officer through false statements to the police. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that defendant wrote “White Power” as part of a memorial to the killer on a desk in her jail cell; the evidence was relevant because the fact that defendant memorialized the killer in such a way supported an inference that she was very close to him and that she intended to prevent the police from apprehending him.
3. DSHS v. Parvin No. 68772-7 (June 9, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1380 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1380 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: COURTS; DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW
Brief: The notice requirements of GR 15(c)(1) do not adequately safeguard the due process guarantees of indigent parents involved in termination proceedings seeking public funding for expert and other services. Accordingly, motions for such services, including motions to seal the moving papers, are exempt from the notice requirements of the rule. The trial court's orders to seal records in this case meet the standard set forth in Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 (2004), which adopts the well-established analytical approach announced in Seattle Times v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (1982). Lastly, the trial court was within its discretion to adopt the CrR 3.1(f) ex parte motion procedure as the proper method for the parents to seek public funding for expert services and orders to seal because no other statute or enforceable court rule prescribed the mode of proceeding.
4. State v. Stacy No. 71437-6 (Filed May 12, 2014; ordered published June 4, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1182 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1182 (Lexis Advance)
Brief: The Court of Appeals affirms defendant's convictions of assault in the second degree by strangulation, assault in the third degree of a police officer, and assault in the fourth degree of a hospital security officer, holding that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of specific instances of conduct to prove peacefulness; (2) the court did not err in refusing to give the proposed instruction on involuntary intoxication; (3) instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the court did not violated defendant's constitutional right to a public trial and his right to be present by submitting a response to a written question from the jury.
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.