Appellate Decisions

Here is a list of the published Washington decisions in which I participated as lead counsel, support counsel, or as amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) on behalf of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Supreme Court of the State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:

80948-8

Title of Case:

State v. King

File Date:

10/15/2009

Oral Argument Date:

01/13/2009

We must decide whether a police officer had the authority to arrest a motorcyclist for reckless driving outside the officer's jurisdiction and whether the officer later offered improper opinion testimony at trial.

....

We hold that King's actions did not constitute an immediate threat to life or property that authorized his arrest under the emergency exception of RCW 10.93.070(2). Thus, we reverse King's conviction for reckless driving under RCW 46.61.500.

TVW Broadcast of the Oral Argument in State v. King

Supreme Court high court nixes out-of-jurisdiction arrest (Seattle Times Article)

STATE v. GUNWALL, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 50979-4.
June 12, 1986.

At issue in this case is whether police can, without legal process, obtain the records of a telephone subscriber's long distance telephone calls (toll records) and by the use of a pen register also obtain the local telephone numbers the subscriber dials.

STATE v. BREAZEALE, 144 Wn.2d 829 (2001)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 69688-8.
Filed: September 27, 2001. Corrected Dissenting Opinion: October 4, 2001.

Respondents in this case sought and received orders from Adams County Superior Court vacating their judgments and sentences and vacating their conviction records in accordance with the provisions of RCW 9.94A.230(1). The Washington State Patrol (Patrol), the agency charged with maintaining criminal records in Washington, declined to follow the orders contending that the Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act (CRPA), chapter 10.97 RCW, obligates the agency to disseminate conviction records. Following a show cause hearing for contempt, the trial court reversed its earlier order and ruled that it lacked authority to order vacation of Respondents' criminal records. Accordingly, the court declined to find the Patrol in contempt of its previous order. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded with instructions to seal Respondents' records and to impose contempt sanctions on the Patrol. We affirm in part and hold that RCW 9.95.240 and RCW 10.97.060 provide statutory authority to vacate Respondents' conviction records. We also reverse in part and hold that the Patrol, while ill-advised in its handling of the matter, may not be held in contempt under the circumstances presented in this case.

STATE v. BARKER, 143 Wn.2d 915 (2001)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 69342-1.
Filed: June 21, 2001.

In 1996, an Oregon state officer pursued the defendant into Washington and detained him until a Washington state trooper arrived and arrested the defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicants. The trial court held that the Oregon officer lacked authority to arrest the defendant, and suppressed all evidence flowing from the arrest, effectively ending the case. On discretionary review sought by the State, the Court of Appeals agreed that the arrest violated RCW 10.93.090, part of the Washington mutual aid peace officer powers act of 1985, because the officer lacked training required by that statute. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the arrest did not violate article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution because the officer had probable cause to arrest.

STATE v. RADAN, 143 Wn.2d 323 (2001)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 69201-7.
Decided March 22, 2001.

In 1987, Richard A. Radan (Radan) was convicted of felony first degree theft in the state of Montana. After serving a portion of his sentence, Radan was granted an early discharge from supervision and pursuant to Montana law, all of Radan's civil rights, including his right to possess firearms, were automatically restored. Subsequently, Radan was charged under RCW 9.41.040 in Pend Oreille County, Washington with "second degree felon in possession of a firearm."

STATE v. ADEL, 136 Wn.2d 629 (1998)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 65565-1.
Decided October 15, 1998.

Hussain Adel claims his two convictions for simple possession of marijuana violate double jeopardy. We agree, and we reverse one conviction.

STATE v. BRETT, 126 Wn.2d 136 (1995)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 59429-5.
April 4, 1995.

James Leroy Brett was convicted by a jury in Clark County Superior Court of aggravated first degree murder and first degree felony murder. The jury sentenced Brett to death following a sentencing proceeding conducted in accordance with the legislative guidelines set forth in RCW 10.95. Brett appealed directly to this court alleging numerous errors occurred in the pretrial, guilt, and penalty phases of the trial. After carefully considering Brett's arguments and conducting our statutorily mandated review, we find there is no reversible error and affirm the conviction and death sentence.

KADORANIAN v. BELLINGHAM POLICE, 119 Wn.2d 178 (1992)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 58445-1.
May 21, 1992.

This is a civil action seeking damages allegedly caused by constitutional and statutory violations of the right to privacy. Appellant, Alice Kadoranian, claims her right to privacy was violated when Bellingham police officers inadvertently intercepted and recorded her brief response to a police informant's telephone inquiry asking whether her father was at home.

STATE v. LAVIOLLETTE, 118 Wn.2d 670 (1992)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 58076-6.
March 19, 1992.

Donald Laviollette, the defendant, was charged and pleaded guilty to four charges of third degree theft in Clark County District Court. Subsequently, Laviollette was convicted in a separate proceeding of second degree burglary arising out of the same incident in Clark County Superior Court. The State challenges a Court of Appeals decision reversing the burglary conviction of the defendant on the grounds of double jeopardy. It argues the Court of Appeals erred in applying the United States Supreme Court's double jeopardy test as set forth in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L.Ed.2d 548, 110 S.Ct. 2084 (1990). Alternatively, it argues the Court of Appeals should have found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the first degree. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

STATE v. LABANOWSKI, 117 Wn.2d 405 (1991)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
Nos. 57582-7, 57606-8.
September 19, 1991.

The appeals in these two criminal cases have been consolidated. Both involve the type of concluding instructions which should be given to a jury in order to structure its deliberations in cases where lesser included offense or lesser degree instructions are given.

STATE v. BATISTA, 116 Wn.2d 777 (1991)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 56334-9.
April 18, 1991.

Alfonso Batista was convicted of first degree murder and first degree assault. Batista maintains that the trial court erred in imposing an exceptional sentence, consisting of consecutive sentences for the crimes. The trial court justified the consecutive sentences by relying upon RCW 9.94A.390(2)(f),[fn1] which allows for an exceptional sentence where a presumptive sentence would be clearly too lenient in light of the purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA). In doing so, however, the trial court misconstrued the nature and effect of RCW 9.94A.390(2)(f).

STATE v. MAXWELL, 114 Wn.2d 761 (1990)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 56567-8.
May 17, 1990.

This appeal is based upon an order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. Relevant information is based solely on the affidavit supporting the search warrant. The affidavit was executed by Detective T. Carlson of the Benton County Sheriff's Department and contains a report of statements from a "concerned citizen." The trial court, the Honorable Dennis D. Yule, granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the case. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division Three, which reversed and remanded for trial.

STATE v. MENNEGAR, 114 Wn.2d 304 (1990)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 56042-1.
March 15, 1990.

This is a review of an order of the Superior Court for Snohomish County suppressing evidence (drugs) found on the defendant's person during a search made following defendant's arrest pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. The defendant's position is that the existence of the outstanding warrant was discovered while he was being illegally detained by a police officer. The Prosecuting Attorney for Snohomish County seeks review of a divided opinion of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the suppression order.[fn1] We reverse.

STATE v. LONG, 113 Wn.2d 266 (1989)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 55814-1.
September 14, 1989.

At issue in this case is whether a defendant's refusal to take a breath test is admissible in the State's case in chief in a trial for driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

STATE v. BELGARDE, 110 Wn.2d 504 (1988)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 53556-6.
May 26, 1988.

Kermit Belgarde challenges his convictions for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. Belgarde contends that prosecutorial conduct during closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. We agree and reverse the convictions.

STATE v. HANCOCK, 109 Wn.2d 760 (1988)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 53758-5.
January 14, 1988.

Loren Hancock appeals his conviction of one count of indecent liberties, one count of first degree incest, and one count of third degree statutory rape. Hancock argues that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach its own witness and in admitting into evidence a victim's testimony that Hancock owned a gun. We affirm.

STATE v. JAMES, 108 Wn.2d 483 (1987)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 53069-6.
July 23, 1987.

Defendant Ronald A. James appeals his conviction for first degree murder. He assigns error to a trial court decision granting the State's pretrial motion to amend the charge to first degree murder. The effect of this ruling was to deny his request to withdraw his not guilty plea and plead guilty to the original charge of second degree murder. James contends that the trial court violated CrR 2.1(e) because granting the amendment prejudiced his unconditional right to plead guilty, recognized by this court in State v. Martin, 94 Wn.2d 1, 614 P.2d 164 (1980). We reject James' argument and affirm the trial court's decision. Although James' has a right to withdraw his not guilty plea, his right is not absolute. James exercised his unconditional right to enter a plea under Martin when he made a legally sufficient plea of not guilty at the arraignment. The trial court's decision to grant the amendment did not prejudice any substantial right, and therefore conformed with CrR 2.1(e).

IN RE LaBELLE, 107 Wn.2d 196 (1986)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
Nos. 52570-6, 52689-3, 52688-5, 52613-3.
November 13, 1986.

Appellants Thomas LaBelle, Maurice Marshall, Harold Richardson, and Gerald Trueblood appeal from separate orders involuntarily committing them for treatment of mental disorders under RCW 71.05 following hearings at which the trial court found them "gravely disabled". In these consolidated cases appellants challenge inter alia the constitutionality of the gravely disabled standard for involuntary civil commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence thereunder. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

STATE v. PROK, 107 Wn.2d 153 (1986)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 52374-6.
November 6, 1986.

The prosecution seeks to overturn a trial court decision, affirmed on appeal, dismissing this driving while intoxicated (DWI) case for JCrR 2.11(c)(1) violations. We agree with the prosecution that suppression of the tainted evidence is the appropriate remedy. In reversing the lower courts we hold that the remaining evidence, held to be admissible, was taken before the defendant came within the scope of protection afforded by JCrR 2.11(c)(1).

STATE v. LAVARIS, 106 Wn.2d 340 (1986)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 52036-4.
July 3, 1986.

Petitioner, Luis Lavaris, was convicted of first degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but was reversed and remanded by this court. Lavaris was retried and again convicted of first degree murder. The Court of Appeals again affirmed his conviction. Lavaris now contends the State improperly called a witness for the primary purpose of impeaching him with a prior inconsistent statement, when that statement inculpated Lavaris and was otherwise inadmissible against him as hearsay. We affirm the conviction, but on different grounds than those enunciated by the Court of Appeals.

STATE v. JOHNSON, 105 Wn.2d 92 (1986)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
Nos. 51557-3, 51686-3.
January 9, 1986.

Rocky Lee Johnson pleaded guilty to count 2 of attempting to harm a police dog and was tried and found guilty on count 1 of assault in the second degree. On January 13, 1984, the trial court deferred his sentence for 3 years, subject to conditions of jail time, probation, and restitution. Upon notice of Johnson's intent to appeal, the trial court denied Johnson's request for probation during pendency of appeal, but accepted the understanding of Johnson's attorney that Johnson would have a probation officer during the pendency of the appeal. The court also stressed the importance of Johnson's entrance in an anger management program upon his release. Johnson then filed notice of appeal in February 1984, after which both parties filed briefs with argument set for February 6, 1985.

IN RE VETTER, 104 Wn.2d 779 (1985)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. C.D. 6318.
December 5, 1985.

The Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association has unanimously recommended that respondent attorney William V. Vetter be disbarred for acts of misconduct involving trust account violations, as well as numerous acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and concealment. We adopt that recommendation.

STATE v. GULOY, 104 Wn.2d 412 (1985)
Washington Supreme Court Reports
No. 48248-9.
September 5, 1985.

On June 1, 1981, two members of the Cannery Workers Union, Gene Viernes and Silme Domingo, were shot at the union hall. Viernes was shot through the heart and died immediately. Domingo, despite being shot four times, managed to stumble out of the union hall and call for help. A bus driver heard Domingo's cries and called Medic I. Huckins, a firefighter responding to the call, asked Domingo whether he knew who shot him. Domingo stated that he was shot by two Filipinos, Jim Ramil and Ben Guloy. Domingo repeated the names several times and even told another firefighter that Ramil's name had ended in an "l" and not an "o". On his deathbed in the hospital, Domingo again identified Ramil and Guloy as his assailants.

STATE v. JOHNSON, 147 Wn. App. 276, 194 P.3d 1009 (2008) Daniel Johnson, Jason Balaski, and Michael Odell each appeal their convictions for one Page 279 count of first degree murder, two counts of first degree assault, and one count of first degree burglary. They variously contend that (1) the record is insufficient to allow appellate review, (2) the trial court erred when it denied their motions to sever, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions for the first degree assault of Laura Harrington, (4) the trial court improperly granted a continuance to Balaski and Odell over Johnson's objection, (5) the trial court erred when it denied their motions to suppress evidence, (6) a juror should not have been seated because he had met a victim at the crime scene, (7) Johnson received ineffective assistance of counsel, (8) the trial court erred in denying Odell's motion for a mistrial because Balaski's counsel commented on Odell's silence during opening statements, (9) the trial court erred in sentencing Odell for two crimes that encompass the same criminal conduct, and (10) cumulative error deprived them of a fair trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

STATE v. CLASSEN, 143 Wn. App. 45, 176 P.3d 582 (2007) James Classen appeals his conviction for first degree murder of his wife. He argues that (1) the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of State expert witness Dr. Barry Ward about a conversation Ward allegedly had with Classen's son concerning the degree of murder Ward believed was appropriate, (2) testimony about his (Classen's) pretrial behavior while in custody violated his right to a fair trial, (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument when he misstated the law by calling manslaughter an "accident," and (4) the reconstructed record is insufficient for review. We affirm.

STATE v. McENRY, 124 Wn. App. 918 (2004)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 30888-6-II.
December 28, 2004.

The State appeals the trial court's order sealing John Edward McEnry's trial court file. We hold that McEnry failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances for sealing as required by GR 15 and Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa.[fn1] Also, the trial court erred in relying on RCW 9.94A.640(3) to find a compelling circumstance justifying sealing. We reverse.

STATE v. FARR-LENZINI, 93 Wn. App. 453 (1999)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 21969-7-II
January 8, 1999

Lisa Ann Farr-Lenzini appeals her conviction for attempting to elude a police officer, RCW 46.61.024. Because the officer's opinion testimony as to Farr-Lenzini's state of mind constituted harmful error, we reverse. We further hold that the traffic infraction of negligent driving in the second degree, RCW 46.61.525, is not a lesser included offense of reckless driving, RCW 46.61.500.

STATE v. COPELAND, 89 Wn. App. 492 (1998)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 20190-9-II.
January 16, 1998.

Melvin Copeland appeals his conviction for second degree rape, and the State cross-appeals the trial court's failure to sentence Copeland as a persistent offender. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Copeland a new trial because the State failed to disclose a felony conviction of the complaining witness. We reverse and remand for new trial.

STATE v. KEENE, 86 Wn. App. 589 (1997)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 20282-4-II; 21737-6-II.
May 23, 1997.

The State charged Terry Lee Keene with the rape of a child. At trial, a detective testified that Keene did not return police telephone calls after being warned that she would turn the case over to the prosecutors unless Keene contacted her. In closing, the prosecutor asked the jury if these were the actions of an innocent man. Because the detective's testimony and the prosecutor's argument constituted impermissible comments on Keene's right to pre-arrest silence, and the error was not harmless, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

STATE v. SULLIVAN, 69 Wn. App. 167 (1993)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 14054-3-II; 14476-0-II.
March 25, 1993.

James Sullivan appeals from his convictions on jury verdicts of guilty to the crimes of statutory rape in the first degree, former RCW 9A.44.070(1), and indecent liberties, RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b). The victim was an 11-year-old girl, a member of Sullivan's household. The other members of the household included Sullivan, his wife, and the victim's siblings. On appeal, Sullivan contends that the prosecutor elicited evidence placing him in a high-risk category of sexual offenders in violation of an order in limine, thus entitling him to a new trial; that his right to a fair trial was infringed when a juror was dismissed over objection and replaced by an alternate after most of the evidence had been heard; that he was deprived of a right to a fair trial because of misconduct by the prosecutor; and that the evidence was insufficient to establish statutory rape.

STATE v. CLAPP, 67 Wn. App. 263 (1992)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 14372-1-II; 15215-1-II.
August 26, 1992.

Marvin Clapp was convicted by a jury of two counts of solicitation of murder in the first degree and one count of solicitation of arson in the first degree. He appeals the conviction, the sentence, and the trial court's order requiring him to pay restitution to one of the arson victims. We find no error and affirm the convictions and the sentence as well as the order of restitution.

BURNETT v. DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING, 66 Wn. App. 253 (1992)
Nos. 12654-1-II; 13910-3-II.
July 1, 1992.

After being separately arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, Larry Gasaway and James Burnett refused to consent to breath tests designed to detect the quantity of alcohol in their bodies. The Department of Licensing revoked their driver's licenses. The Superior Court affirmed. We also affirm.

STATE v. SIGMAN, 60 Wn. App. 1 (1990)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 12845-4-II.
December 26, 1990.

[1] We affirm an order setting aside a guilty verdict and dismissing a charge of "making available" a building knowing that it was being used for growing marijuana. RCW 69.53.010(1). We do not, however, find the statute unconstitutionally vague, as did the trial court. Rather, we hold that, properly construed, the statute did not criminalize defendant Craig Sigman's acts or omissions. LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 200-01, 770 P.2d 1027 (trial court may be affirmed on any basis supported by the law and the record), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 L.Ed.2d 29, 110 S.Ct. 61 (1989).

STATE v. CHILES, 53 Wn. App. 452 (1989)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 10756-2-II.
February 15, 1989.

This court accepted the State's request for discretionary review of the Clark County Superior Court's decision on review affirming the District Court's dismissal of nine complaints of public indecency[fn1] against the defendant Patrick Chiles. RAP 2.3(d)(1), (3). The issue we are asked to resolve is whether the indecent exposure of the defendant while inside his home in such a manner as to be readily observed by pedestrians on the public sidewalk outside the home satisfies the requirement of former RCW 9A.88.010, that the conduct proscribed must occur in a public place. State v. Sayler, 36 Wn. App. 230, 673 P.2d 870 (1983). We reverse, holding that such exposure was proscribed by the statute then in effect.

STATE v. WATKINS, 53 Wn. App. 264 (1989)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 18347-8-I.
January 17, 1989.

Patricia Watkins appeals from her conviction for five counts of robbery in the first degree. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for severance of counts, her motion to suppress in-court identifications, and her motions for a mistrial and for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. She also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give her proposed jury instruction on eyewitness identification and in calculating her offender score.


STATE v. WILLIAMS, 50 Wn. App. 696 (1988)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 15180-1-I; 15711-6-I; 15949-6-I.
February 29, 1988.

In these consolidated cases on appeal, the appellants contest the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress their confessions.

STATE v. ALLEN, 50 Wn. App. 412 (1988)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 18734-1-I.
January 25, 1988.

Jolene Allen appeals her conviction for first degree murder. She contends that the trial court erred by: (1) denying her motion to strike a police officer's opinion testimony; (2) responding to a jury inquiry without notifying her or her attorney; (3) giving jury instructions on premeditation and proximate cause which, she claims, alleviated the State of its burden of proof; (4) prohibiting the defense from impeaching a witness with his prior conviction; and (5) permitting the State to impeach Jolene on a collateral matter through a rebuttal witness. We affirm.

STATE v. GLESSNER, 50 Wn. App. 397 (1988)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 18221-8-I.
January 20, 1988.

Jerry Glessner was charged by information with vehicular homicide. At trial, the charge was dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case for insufficiency of the evidence, and trial was continued on the lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated. The initial jury was unable to arrive at a verdict and a mistrial was declared; on retrial, Glessner was convicted by a second jury of driving while intoxicated. Glessner appeals from the judgment entered upon the verdict, assigning error to the court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a blood test administered at the request of the State. We affirm.

STATE v. PITTMAN, 49 Wn. App. 899 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 18405-9-I.
December 14, 1987.

Jimmy Lee Pittman was charged by amended information with robbing four persons and a store while armed with a handgun. He was found guilty on all counts and appeals. The State cross-appeals.

STATE v. JOHNSON, 48 Wn. App. 531 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 16609-3-I; 16955-6-I.
July 20, 1987.

Sherwood Knight and Gregory Johnson appeal their convictions for three counts of robbery in the second degree.

STATE v. STARK, 48 Wn. App. 245 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 17226-3-I.
June 15, 1987.

Wilbur Nelson Stark appeals his conviction for one count of first degree statutory rape and one count of indecent liberties. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain out-of-court statements of the victims, in failing to require the jury to specify the act upon which it relied to convict on the statutory rape count, in refusing to appoint substitute counsel, and in running his sentences consecutively instead of concurrently with two previously imposed sentences for bail jumping. He also contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

STATE v. STUBSJOEN, 48 Wn. App. 139 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15636-5-I.
June 8, 1987.

Erin Kirsten Stubsjoen appeals her conviction for second degree kidnapping, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and assigning error to the exclusion of testimony of a defense witness and to the failure to instruct the jury on the definition of intent. We affirm.

STATE v. BROWN, 47 Wn. App. 729 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 17374-0-I; 17567-0-I; 17568-8-I.
May 20, 1987.

Randy Brown, a juvenile, appeals three orders of disposition. He argues that the "300 percent" rule of RCW 13.40.180(2) required the court to limit his sentence for all of the offenses to 300 percent of the term imposed for the most serious offense. We affirm.

STATE v. STANLEY, 47 Wn. App. 715 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 17912-8-I.
May 20, 1987.

Kathleen Stanley appeals an order modifying her probation by requiring that she serve a period of 1 year in the county jail without credit for time already served. We reverse and remand.

STATE v. TYLER, 47 Wn. App. 648 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16156-3-I.
May 13, 1987.

The defendant, Marsha Tyler, was found guilty by a jury of first degree theft. She appeals the judgment and sentence imposed, contending that the trial court erred by not submitting an instruction defining "intent." We agree and accordingly reverse.

STATE v. PLANK, 47 Wn. App. 461 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16436-8-I.
April 20, 1987.

The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether or not a person who fails to appear before a court after release on personal recognizance should be charged with a crime pursuant to RCW 10.19.130, or pursuant to a later legislative enactment, RCW 9A.76.170. In this case, appellant was charged and convicted under RCW 10.19.130. We hold that the later legislative enactment repealed RCW 10.19.130 by implication and reverse.

STATE v. MOON, 48 Wn. App. 647 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15697-7-I.
April 13, 1987.

The appellant, Mark Richard Moon, appeals his convictions on four counts of robbery and one count of first degree kidnapping. The facts will not be restated except as necessary to an understanding of our reasons for resolution of the issues. The issues raised are as follows:

STATE v. GOODRICH, 47 Wn. App. 114 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 17412-6-I.
March 9, 1987.

The defendant, Martin Goodrich, appeals the trial court's order of restitution entered after Goodrich pleaded guilty to second degree assault. He argues that the trial court was without statutory authority to order restitution for medical expenses not yet incurred by the victim or to order payment of lost wages not the direct result of the victim's injuries.

IN RE MEISTRELL, 47 Wn. App. 100 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15215-7-I.
March 9, 1987.

Stephen Meistrell appeals the trial court's granting of the State's petition to commit him for involuntary treatment for a period of 14 days.

STATE v. HAMILTON, 47 Wn. App. 15 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15780-9-I.
March 2, 1987.

Michael Owen Hamilton appeals his convictions for assault in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, both while armed with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

STATE v. HANCOCK, 46 Wn. App. 672 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16676-0-I.
January 26, 1987.

Loren W. Hancock appeals his conviction for one count of indecent liberties, one count of first degree incest, and one count of third degree statutory rape. He contends that the trial court erred (1) in finding the out-of-court statements of one of the victims admissible under RCW 9A.44.120, (2) in interpreting RCW 9A.44.120 to permit the victim's mother to testify about a statement made by Hancock to the victim, (3) in refusing to admit certain evidence pertaining to previous sexual abuse of the victim by one other than Hancock, (4) in admitting evidence of Hancock's gun ownership, and (5) in allowing the State to call Hancock's wife for the sole purpose of impeaching her. We affirm the trial court.

STATE v. BUSHEY, 46 Wn. App. 579 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16360-4-I.
January 21, 1987.

Appellant Bruce Bradley Bushey appeals a conviction of aggravated first degree murder. He appeals on three grounds: first, he contends that the aggravated first degree murder statute (RCW 10.95.020) is unconstitutional as applied in this case. Second, he claims that the court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of aggravated first degree murder when there was insufficient evidence of premeditation. Third, he maintains that the court erred by excusing for cause jurors who expressed opposition to the death penalty. We affirm the trial court.

STATE v. RIENKS, 46 Wn. App. 537 (1987)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16932-7-I.
January 14, 1987.

Edward A. Rienks appeals his conviction for one count each of first degree assault, first degree burglary, first degree robbery, and second degree assault. The first three counts arise out of an incident occurring on October 18, 1984, in the Lynnwood apartment of a man named Kenny, and the fourth count, the second degree assault, stems from an incident occurring in Kenny's apartment a few days later, on October 23, 1984. Rienks alleges that the trial court erred (1) in failing to merge the first degree assault charge with the first degree robbery charge; (2) in communicating with the jury outside the presence of his trial counsel; and (3) in calculating his standard sentence range under RCW 9.94A, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA). We affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part.

STATE v. BELGARDE, 46 Wn. App. 441 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15779-5-I.
December 31, 1986.

Kermit A. Belgarde, also known as Gary Thorsen, appeals from his convictions of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. Belgarde contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial references to post-arrest silence, (2) denying his motion for a change of venue, and (3) denying his motion for sequestration of the jury. He also contends that prosecutorial conduct during closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. We find that Belgarde received a fair trial, and therefore affirm his conviction.

STATE v. PERKINS, 46 Wn. App. 333 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16898-3-I.
December 24, 1986.

The State of Washington appeals entry of a sentence following a plea agreement which incorrectly stated the standard sentencing range for the offense as a result of a clerical error made by the prosecutor in developing the plea agreement. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

STATE v. FREDRICK, 45 Wn. App. 916 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15396-0-I.
October 20, 1986.

DaLean Monique Doolan appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (VUCSA), RCW 69.50.401(d). She alleges that the trial court erred in denying her motion for an in camera hearing regarding the State's confidential informant, in admitting testimony about the possession of cocaine in violation of an order in limine, and in admitting evidence regarding money seized, a "drug dealer's ledger," and typical practices of a drug dealer. Doolan also alleges that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the accumulation of errors denied her a fair trial. We disagree with her contentions and affirm the trial court.

STATE v. SUMMERS, 45 Wn. App. 761 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 16176-8-I.
September 29, 1986.

Dwight Summers appeals from his conviction for possession of stolen property, on the ground that the trial court's judgment was not supported by the evidence. We reverse.

STATE v. WOOD, 45 Wn. App. 299 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15836-8-I.
September 8, 1986.

Steven Wood appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after the trial judge found him guilty of possession of marijuana in violation of RCW 69.50.401(d). He claims that the trial court erred in failing to suppress certain evidence.

STATE v. ALONZO, 45 Wn. App. 256 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 15943-7-I; 15944-5-I; 16024-9-I; 16101-6-I; 16264-1-I; 16333-7-I; 15889-9-I; 16069-9-I; 16267-5-I.
September 2, 1986.

The defendants, all Cubans, were arrested for selling marijuana near the Pike Place Market during a week-long "emphasis patrol" by Seattle Police. Alleging they were the victims of impermissibly selective prosecution, the defendants moved to dismiss. Their cases were consolidated for hearing before a superior court judge.

STATE v. BLACKSHEAR, 44 Wn. App. 587 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 18566-7-I.
July 30, 1986.

The State seeks discretionary review of a pretrial order requiring it to give limited answers to certain interrogatories. We accept discretionary review pursuant to RAP 2.3(b) and reverse.

STATE v. HARDY, 44 Wn. App. 477 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15529-6-I.
July 23, 1986.

Eraina Hardy was found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree while armed with a deadly weapon. She appeals, assigning error to the trial court's giving or refusing to give certain instructions. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

IN RE BAKER, 44 Wn. App. 116 (1986)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15802-3-I.
June 16, 1986.

Leydell Baker has filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) alleging that his due process rights have been violated because the Department of Corrections has refused to recommend him for parole absent his participation in the Mutual Agreement Program (MAP) even though he is beyond his good time release date. We dismiss the petition.

STATE v. ARANGUREN, 42 Wn. App. 452 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 14499-5-I; 14608-4-I.
December 30, 1985.

Emilio Crespo Aranguren and Guillermo Duquesne-Valera appeal their convictions for possession of stolen property in the third degree. Their cases, tried separately at the trial court level, have been consolidated on appeal. Both appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence that was obtained from an allegedly illegal investigatory stop.

STATE v. LOEHNER, 42 Wn. App. 408 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15218-1-I.
December 23, 1985.

Alfred Loahner was charged by information with one count of second degree statutory rape, which was alleged to have been committed between June 1, 1982, and February 1, 1984. Two trials were held. The first jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. The second jury returned a guilty verdict. The trial court denied Loehner's motion for a new trial and judgment and sentence were entered on July 20, 1984. He appeals.

STATE v. SMITH, 42 Wn. App. 399 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 15013-8-I.
December 23, 1985.

On November 18, 1983, appellant Terence Smith entered a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary in the second degree. The trial court deferred imposition of sentence and ordered appellant to pay restitution to the burglary victims.

STATE v. SINGLETON, 41 Wn. App. 721 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
Nos. 14666-1-I; 14671-8-I.
September 9, 1985.

Ronald Lee Singleton appeals his judgment and sentence for two of three counts of simple assault and the revocation of his probation based on the assault convictions. We affirm.

STATE v. LAVARIS, 41 Wn. App. 856 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 13895-2-I.
August 19, 1985.

Luis Lavaris and Francisco Castro were charged by amended information with first degree murder, committed while armed with a deadly weapon. They were tried separately. Castro's conviction was affirmed in State v. Castro, 32 Wn. App. 559, 648 P.2d 485, review denied, 98 Wn.2d 1007 (1982). Lavaris's conviction was affirmed in State v. Lavaris, 32 Wn. App. 769, 649 P.2d 849 (1982), but reversed and remanded in State v. Lavaris, 99 Wn.2d 851, 664 P.2d 1234 (1983). At Lavaris's second trial, he was found guilty by a jury, and judgment was entered. He appeals.

STATE v. FISHER, 40 Wn. App. 888 (1985)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 14491-0-I.
May 20, 1985.

Defendant Chris Fisher, a juvenile, appeals his conviction for malicious mischief claiming that the trial court erred in failing to enter sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law and in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malicious mischief. We affirm.

STATE v. WASHINGTON, 36 Wn. App. 792 (1984)
Washington Court of Appeals Reports
No. 11146-9-I.
March 5, 1984.

In State v. Washington, 34 Wn. App. 410, 661 P.2d 605 (1983), this court affirmed the third degree assault conviction of William Dean Washington, concluding that the trial court did not err by failing to provide a voluntary intoxication instruction. On October 7, 1983, our Supreme Court remanded this case to our court for reconsideration in light of State v. Jones, 95 Wn.2d 616, 628 P.2d 472 (1981). Upon consideration, in light of the remand, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a voluntary intoxication instruction and, therefore, we reverse.

STATE v. FRANKLIN, 41 Wn. App. 409 (1985)
No. 14466-9-I.
August 7, 1985.

On October 7, 1983, Officer Mario Navarette was working as an off-duty security guard in the Seattle Greyhound bus station. At approximately 5 p.m., he was approached by a citizen he recognized from previous encounters at the bus station. The citizen asked Navarette if it was legal to carry a gun in public. Navarette replied that "it's not legal to display a gun in public if that is what you mean." The citizen then stated, "I saw a guy in the bathroom with a gun." Officer Navarette asked for a description of the man in the bathroom, and the citizen told him the suspect was a male, seated in the middle stall, wearing blue jeans, tennis shoes, and a dark jacket.