Supreme Court of Washington Blog

Watch argument on Public Records Act in Yakima County v. Yakima Herald

Jonathan Bechtle — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:01:07 -0800

In case you have a fetish for following open government law, like we do, here's the video from yesterday's oral argument in Yakima County v. Yakima Herald Republic.

Today's arguments - March 9, 2010

Jonathan Bechtle — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:00:00 -0800

Today the Court will hear four arguments concerning criminal evidence, public records and due process. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m.

State v. Ibarra-Cizneros, No. 82219-1. The question before the Court is whether prosecutors can use criminal evidence uncovered via a cell phone seized illegally by police.

Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros called his brother's cell phone, not knowing that his brother had been arrested and the phone seized by police. The police answered the phone and arranged to meet with Gilberto. At the meeting, undercover officers found drugs on him and arrested him.

Later a court determined that the search leading to the brother's arrest (and thus the seizure of the cell phone) was illegal. Gilberto argues that since the police only turned their attention to him because of the cell phone, all the evidence from their meeting is “fruit of the poisonous tree” barred by the exclusionary rule. The Walla Walla Superior Court disagreed, holding that the link between the phone and the evidence was “too attenuated” to impact Gilberto’s conviction.

The Division Three Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, No. 82229-8. This case concerns whether the Public Records Act compels disclosure of sealed billing records concerning fees paid by Yakima County to public defense attorneys.

Yakima County appointed lawyers to represent two indigent murder defendants, paying them approximately $2 million. As part of the payment process, a judge who was not otherwise involved in the case reviewed the lawyers' bills to decide whether they should be paid.

The Yakima Herald-Republic filed a request under the Public Records Act for spreadsheets and other files related to the bills. The County withheld the records, claiming that they were exempt from the Public Records Act under Nast v. Michels because they are judicial records. The Herald-Republic argues that Nast only exempts “court case files,” not administrative records.

The Court recently ruled on a similar issue in Federal Way v. Koenig, affirming Nast and finding that administrative court records were not subject to the PRA, so it will be interesting to see what differentiation the Court makes in this case.

Afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m.

State v. Nason, No. 82333-2. The issue before the Court is whether Spokane County's policy of imposing jail time on offenders who fail to pay court costs violates due process.

James Nason was convicted of burglary, sentenced to community service, and ordered to pay certain court costs. He did not pay, and the court subsequently modified his sentence to impose jail time. (Spokane County has a policy allowing the courts to order jail time when a defendant refuses to pay his obligations.) Nason argues on appeal that this violated his due process rights in various ways, including the lack of a separate hearing and the fact that he was not given credit against his financial obligations for the time served in jail.

The Division Three Court of Appeals upheld his sentence.

State v. Stubbs, No. 81650-6. This case concerns whether a stabbing that results in partial paralysis satisfies the requirement for an exceptional sentence for first degree assault, and whether the requirement itself is unconstitutionally vague.

Troy Stubbs stabbed Ryan Goodwin in the neck, severing his spinal cord and paralyzing him from the waist down. Stubbs was convicted of first degree assault and given an exceptional sentence due to his victim's injuries. Such sentences are allowed where the injuries “substantially exceed the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements” of a crime.

Stubbs argues that since one element of first degree assault is the infliction of “great bodily harm,” Goodwin's extreme injuries are an element of the crime. The court disagreed, holding that the jury could find that Goodwin's injuries substantially exceeded the great bodily harm element.

Stubbs also argues that the test for an exceptional sentence, found in RCW 9.94A.535(3)(y), is unconstitutionally vague.

Oral Argument Preview - Are Judicial Records Subject to the Public Records Act?

Jonathan Bechtle — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:41:23 -0800

Tomorrow the Court will hear Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, which concerns whether the Public Records Act applies to administrative court records, specifically billing records explaining fees paid by Yakima County to public defense attorneys.

The Court recently ruled on a similar issue in Federal Way v. Koenig, affirming the twenty-year precedent in Nast v. Michels and finding that administrative court records were not subject to the PRA, so it will be interesting to see if the Court will try to differentiate this case, or merely affirm Koenig.

Koenig was decided 7-2, with two pro-tem Justices replacing Justices Sanders and Madsen. Owens wrote the lead opinion, Stephens dissented and was joined by Alexander. So if a rematch is held the final vote count could be different, but it seems unlikely Koenig will be overruled.

This week at the Supreme Court, March 8, 2010

Michael Reitz — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:51:13 -0800

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in several cases on Tuesday, and will likely issue opinions on Thursday.

The role of social media in judicial elections

Michael Reitz — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:46:09 -0800

One of the unique features of Washington's 2010 judicial elections will be the role of social media in helping candidates get out their message. Three state Supreme Court justices are up for reelection – Madsen, Sanders, and Jim Johnson – and already candidates are employing social media in ways never before used in Washington Supreme Court elections. Justice Jim Johnson announced his reelection bid on his Facebook page and attracted dozens of fans within a few hours. Justice Sanders also has a Facebook page which announces campaign events. Attorney Charlie Wiggins, who is challenging Sanders, is on both Facebook and Twitter.

Last November the Washington Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion that stated judicial blogging is permitted under the Code of Judicial Conduct, provided the judge can do so in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Presumably the same guidance would apply to newer forms of social marketing as well.

This trend is not unique to Washington. Attorney and blogger Don Cruse (@doncruse) covers the state Supreme Court in Texas, where voters just completed a primary for open Supreme Court seats. Don created a feed of the Twitter accounts of each candidate -- a fascinating stream-of-consciousness resource for voters.

LexBlog CEO Kevin O’Keefe is the Aristotle of legal bloggers – he spends his time wandering around the country training lawyers how to blog. (Read, for example, his blog post “Focus on the possibilities of blogging and social media, not the challenges.”) The legal profession is embracing the potential of social media, so it's logical that the judiciary would eventually follow.

Judicial candidates are no longer speaking through intermediaries like campaign literature or editorial boards. They’re appealing directly to the members of the public who will vote for them. What impact will social media have in these races? Is this a good development?

What do you think?

Weapon sentencing enhancements do not violate double jeopardy

Michael Reitz — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:08:07 -0800

The Supreme Court today decisively ruled that sentencing enhancements for the possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime are not constitutionally prohibited. The case is State v. Aguirre, No. 82226-3 (briefs and argument).

Daniel Aguirre was convicted in Thurston County Superior Court of assault and rape. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeals (Div. 2), arguing that a number of errors occurred at trial. Aguirre argues the trial court committed a number of errors, and argues that the deadly weapon enhancement to his sentence for assault with a deadly weapon violates double jeopardy. The double jeopardy clauses of both the federal and state constitutions protect defendants from being twice put in jeopardy for the same crime.

The Supreme Court, with Justice James Johnson writing the unanimous opinion, rejected all of Aguirre’s claims. On the double jeopardy issue the Court said: “Washington courts repeatedly have held that double jeopardy is not offended by weapon enhancements even when being armed with the weapon is an element of the underlying crime.”

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen also running for reelection

Michael Reitz — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:47:27 -0800

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen filed her candidate registration form yesterday, formalizing her plans to run for reelection. She has yet to draw any opponents.

Justice Jim Johnson announces reelection bid

Michael Reitz — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:38:59 -0800

Justice Jim Johnson announced his plan to seek a second term on the Supreme Court. Check out his campaign Facebook page here. The page describes Justice Johnson as "the state Supreme Court’s most ardent supporter of liberty and judicial restraint." At this time there are no challengers for his position.

New cases accepted for review

Michael Reitz — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:29:13 -0800

The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review during its March 2 conference.

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6
State v. Sims, No. 83779-1
Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7
State v. Simms, No. 83826-7
State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6. Qualcomm is seeking a refund of retail sales taxes it paid after a Department of Revenue ruling. Qualcomm sells a communications system to trucking companies to assist them with tracking and managing vehicles. After an audit, the Department of Revenue determined that Qualcomm was improperly paying the lower business and occupations (B & O) tax service rate, and DOR assessed Qualcomm $900,573 based on its assumption that the tracking portion of Qualcomm's system is a “network telephone service,” which is taxed at a higher rate. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) upheld the Department of Revenue assessment.

State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Jack Sims pled guilty of first degree child molestation. He was sentenced to in prison, with 60 months of minimum mandatory confinement, but the court suspended this sentence in imposing a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative. The court also entered an order prohibiting Sims from entering or residing in Cowlitz County. Sims appealed this banishment, arguing it is a violation of his right to due process and equal protection under the constitution. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the order banishing Sims from the county for life impermissibly impinged on his constitutional right to travel. The Court vacated the entire sentence, including the banishment, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3. Coach USA Transit contracted with Community Transit to provide commuter transit service between King and Snohomish counties. Thereafter Coach USA Transit assigned the contract to First Transit. In 2004, a 5-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 5 involving both a First Transit bus and a Community Transit bus. Community Transit settled 42 claims incurring $1,250,950 to investigate and settle the claims. First Transit refused to defend or indemnify Community Transit, despite an indemnification clause in the party’s contract. Community Transit sued, seeking to enforce the indemnity clause. The trial court ruled in First Transit’s favor. Community Transit argued the agreement requires First Transit to indemnify it for tort claims caused by the combined negligence of Community Transit and third parties, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held the contract does not does not clearly and unequivocally state this intention, and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against First Transit.

ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7. The State Gambling Commission denied ZDI Gaming’s application to distribute electronic pull-tab machine incorporating cash card technology, finding ZDI’s pull tab machine was an illegal “gambling device.” A Thurston County Superior Court judge overruled the Commission. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the Commission’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and ruled in ZDI’s favor.

State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Daniel Simms was convicted of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. As he was armed when committing the crimes the length of confinement for the firearm sentencing enhancements was doubled. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether there is a constitutional requirement to give notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty.

State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4. The Thurston County Superior Court denied Samuel Donaghe’s motion to issue a RCW 9.94A.637(1) certificate of discharge for his rape convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed. The Supreme Court has consolidated this case with State v. Jones, No. 83451-2.

This week at the Supreme Court, March 1, 2010

Michael Reitz — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:46:53 -0800

The Washington Supreme Court will consider new petitions for review on Tuesday, and may issue opinions on Thursday. No arguments are scheduled this week.

In other news, Supreme Court hopeful Charlie Wiggins in now on Twitter.

A glimpse behind the curtain at the Supreme Court

Jonathan Bechtle — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:15:54 -0800

One of our podcast listeners sent us a copy of a very interesting speech given by Justice Sanders back when he first joined the Court. In the podcast (Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics) Mike, Trent and I discussed the long wait times on court opinions. Sander's speech helps explain the time lag with a detailed behind-the-scenes look at the journey a case goes through from start to finish. It includes such salient tidbits as:

Who the assignment judge is [for a particular case], is a closely guarded secret of the court. To make attorney guesswork more difficult, law clerks in addition to the assignment justice’s law clerks typically attend the oral argument.

So clerk-counting is apparently pointless.

The speech is from 1996, so some procedures have likely changed. But I'm betting that much of the path a case takes is still the same today.

Today's Opinions: Third-party custody petitions and describing meth

Trent England — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:46:21 -0800

In re Custody of E.A.T.W. and E.Y.W., No. 81945-9. Was the superior court right to grant a hearing for a custody petition based only on the fact that the children had lived with the petitioning grandparents for several years? The Court of Appeals had overturned the superior court, and the Supreme Court today upholds the Court of Appeals. The High Court holds that RCW 26.10.032 imposes on third party petitioners the duty of setting forth facts that would show “that the parent is unfit or placement with the parent would result in actual detriment to the child's growth and development.”

The unanimous opinion, written by Justice James Johnson, goes on to hold that this standard is in accord with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville.

In Troxel, the United States Supreme Court affirmed this court's judgment in In re Custody of Smith that constitutionally protected parental rights were violated by a statute allowing a nonparent to wrest custody of a child from a parent based solely on the court's findings regarding the child's best interests. Something more is required than the court's judgment that it could make a better decision than parents concerning the upbringing of children.

(Briefs, Argument-May 28, 2009)

State v. Sibert, No. 79509-6. Richard Sibert was convicted by a jury in 2004 of four crimes related to the sale of methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, and Sibert appeals on three alleged errs: 1) failure of the trial court to include the identity of the “controlled substance” on part of the jury instructions; 2) failure to prove the identity of the controlled substance; 3) an inappropriate jury instruction on “knowledge.”

Today the Court upholds Sibert’s conviction and sentencing. It finds that throughout the trial, everyone involved understood that the controlled substance was methamphetamine. Further, the jury instructions incorporated by reference the charging documents that identified the substance as methamphetamine. It also upholds the instruction on “knowledge,” which the trial court took directly from the Washington Practice.

Justice James Johnson also wrote this majority opinion, but Justices Sanders and Alexander both authored dissents, the latter joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Debra Stephens. The Chief concurred with the majority, but as to the result only. The four dissenting justices would hold prosecutors to a higher standard, in this case requiring a more explicit and precise description of the controlled substance.

(Briefs, Argument-February 10, 2009)

Today's oral arguments - February 23, 2010

Jonathan Bechtle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:00:00 -0800

The court is back in session today to hear three oral arguments, two this morning and one this afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session (starting at 9:00 a.m.)

State v. Adams, No. 822107. Another in a recent line of cases concerning warrantless automobile searches, this case presents the specific issue of whether police can make a warrantless search of a locked car in connection with an arrest.

Coryell Adams had just pulled into a Taco Bell parking lot when a sheriff's deputy pulled in behind him with her flashing lights on. Adams got out of the car and started yelling at the deputy, who told him to get back in the car. Instead of doing so, Adams slammed the car door, locked it, and moved several feet away. After backup arrived the deputy arrested Adams and placed him in handcuffs in the back of her car. She then took Adams' keys, unlocked his car, and searched it, finding cocaine.

Adams challenged the search as unlawful, since the car was locked and there was little danger of him getting a weapon or destroying evidence. The court disagreed, holding that Adams was close enough to be in “immediate control” of the car, and that this justified a search "incident to arrest."

The case is on appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, and originated in King County Superior Court.

Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice, No. 822255. The question before the court is whether citizen initiatives to reverse a city council's decision to fluoridate its water supply are valid.

Port Angeles' City Council decided to put flouride in the city water supply, but two citizen groups filed local initiatives to restrict their ability to carry out the plan. A trial court reviewed the initiatives and determined they were invalid for three reasons: they were administrative rather than legislative, they interfered with the council's legislatively-delegated authority to regulate the water supply, and because they exceeded the council's legislative authority.

Division Two Court of Appeals upheld the trial court ruling on appeal.

Afternoon session (starting at 1:15 p.m.)

State v. Bunker (consolidated with State v. Williams), No. 819211. This case concerns the interpretation of an old version of the statute criminalizing violations of domestic violence no-contact orders.

Leo Bunker and Donald Williams were both convicted of violating domestic violence no-contact orders. They appealed, claiming that RCW 26.50.110 only criminalized certain types of violations and did not apply to theirs.

The statue as then written was somewhat ambiguous- the court stated that “the statute at issue... is unfortunately not a virtuosic specimen of legislative drafting.” But after analyzing it, the court held that it applied to all domestic violence no-contact order violations, including those of Bunker and Williams.

Both cases arose out of King County, and the convictions were upheld in Division One Court of Appeals.

This week at the Supreme Court, Feb. 22, 2010

Michael Reitz — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:47:36 -0800

The Supreme Court will resume hearing arguments this week, on Feb. 23 and 25. The Court may issue opinions on Thursday.

Seattle Times covers upcoming judicial election

Michael Reitz — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:17:29 -0800

Steve Miletich of the Seattle Times has an article about the campaign between Justice Richard Sanders and attorney Charlie Wiggins.

Justice Chambers weighs in on judicial elections

Michael Reitz — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:14:55 -0800

Justice Tom Chambers – the only Washington justice with a blog – has offered his opinion on the debate over how we select judges.

He discusses the issue in a very thoughtful post that acknowledges the flaws in each system. Elections, appointments, selection committees ... they all have their shortcomings.

He discounts the concern that judges up for re-election would pander to popular opinion. “[I]n my 40 years in the law, the judges of Washington State have consistently done the courageous thing and are not swayed by fear of being unelected.” But Chambers cites problems in other states and says the election process can potentially threaten judicial independence.

Lifetime appointments, he says, are also problematic. “Some judges appointed for life have become tyrants and do not treat lawyers, parties, or jurors with respect. On the other hand, it was my experience that state court judges faced with periodic elections see every lawyer, party, and witness as a future potential vote and almost always treated all with respect.”

Appointment committees that screen potential judges? “In the past, such blue ribbon panels have been perceived as a good old boy network; clubbish and difficult for women and minorities to break into.”

Justice Chambers offers an interesting Solomon compromise: elect trial judges, who are closer to their communities, and appoint appellate judges, who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the law. He recommends using a diverse appointment committee and requiring appellate judges to stand for retention elections.

Chambers concludes by showing he is a pragmatist. “Although interesting, this discussion is likely academic as I think it highly unlikely that the people of Washington State are ever going to relinquish their constitutional right to elect judges.”

My restraint is better than thine

Michael Reitz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:10:08 -0800

An interesting little subplot played out in today’s Sieyes opinions. As discussed below, the basic question was whether the state law that prohibits minors from possessing guns is unconstitutional.

Justice Jim Johnson, in his one-vote dissent, wrote that the gun possession statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of judicial review. In other words, the State would be required to show that the statute restricting a 17-year-old from possessing a gun is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. He stressed the “fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms throughout our nation’s history and our legacy of extending that right to young people.” Using this analysis, Justice Johnson would have invalidated the law.

Justice Sanders’ majority opinion, however, does not go so far. Writing for the Court, he held that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington Constitution explicitly protects the individual right to bear arms. Justice Sanders also discussed the appropriate standard of review, and declined to apply strict scrutiny or a less stringent analysis. But Justice Sanders noted that the Mr. Sieyes provided no argument or authority for finding the state’s gun restriction unconstitutional. Without adequate briefing from the parties, the Court declined to address the issue. Justice Sanders seemed to chide Justice Johnson for a lack of restraint: “The argument put forth by the dissent is no substitute for an argument briefed by opposing parties.”

Justice Debra Stephens takes the restraint refrain even further. While agreeing with the case's outcome, she wrote separately to criticize the majority opinion’s lengthy analysis of the constitutional issues at stake. “I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment. Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.”

But Chief Justice Barbara Madsen plays the restraint trump card. She signed the majority opinion and added the notation “result only” to her vote. So while we see her position we have no clue as to her rationale.

Opinion: Second Amendment applies to states, but minors don't have constitutional right to possess guns

Michael Reitz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:33:46 -0800

The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the thorny case of State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2.

17-year-old Christopher Sieyes was charged and convicted for unlawfully possessing a loaded .380 semiautomatic handgun – a violation of RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii), which generally prohibits children under age 18 from possessing firearms. The questions in this case were whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states, and if so, whether the state law banning possession by minors unconstitutionally infringes on the right to bear arms protected under the U.S. and Washington Constitutions.

In 2007, in Heller v. D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, rather than a collective militia right, as argued by D.C. The Court left for another day the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That question will be addressed later this year, as there has been some disagreement between federal circuits, but the Washington Supreme Court beat SCOTUS to the punch.

The Washington Supreme Court, with Justice Richard Sanders writing the majority, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states. “[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms from state interference through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” Justice Sanders also noted that the Washington Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to bear arms, though the Court has not determined the reach of Article I, Sec. 24 since the Heller ruling.

Turning to the question of whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) is constitutional, the Court declined to apply the traditional levels of scrutiny to firearm regulation. The Court voiced agreement with Heller -- that strict scrutiny would invalidate most infringements on the Second Amendment, while a rational basis test would set too low a standard to protect the right to bear arms. “We follow Heller in declining to analyze RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) under any level of scrutiny. Instead we look to the Second Amendment's original meaning, the traditional understanding of the right, and the burden imposed on children by upholding the statute.” Justice Sanders acknowledged the Court's "occasional rhetoric" about the "reasonable regulation" of firearms, but argued the Court has never settled on a precise standard of review.

However, the Court found that Christopher Sieyes made inadequate arguments on whether the law was unconstitutional. “In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.” The Supreme Court held that Sieyes failed to demonstrate that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of his right to possess a gun. The case was remanded for consideration of additional issues.

Gun rights advocates will see this as a partial missed opportunity. After the landmark ruling in Heller, the Washington Supreme Court asked the parties in Sieyes to address whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and the appropriate standard of scrutiny for evaluating firearm regulations. Justice Sanders has long railed against the Court’s reliance on “reasonable regulation” of gun rights, and no doubt wanted to go further in clarifying the court’s jurisprudence. Thus his criticisms of the appellant for inadequately briefing some of these constitutional issues. Even so, the Court firmly holds that the Washington Constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.

Justice Debra Stephens concurred in the result, but wrote that as Sieyes failed to analyze how the state statute violated the constitution the court could stop there and should not have conducted an "extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment." Meanwhile, Justice James Johnson dissented, writing that "the majority disregards our long-standing national tradition allowing younger citizens to bear arms," and he argued strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for a challenge to a statute restricting one's constitutional rights.

(briefs and argument).

Opinion: Additional restitution does not violate double jeopardy

Michael Reitz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:12:55 -0800

Gonzalez sought to reverse the order modifying the total amount of his restitution, arguing the state violated RCW 9.94A.753, the restitution statute. He also argued the additional restitution constituted a second punishment in violation of double jeopardy. The Supreme Court, with Justice Mary Fairhurst writing, rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court. Justice Richard Sanders dissented, writing that the second restitution violated the statute and double jeopardy.

Tomorrow's opinions, Feb. 18, 2010

Michael Reitz — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:38:44 -0800

The Supreme Court will issue opinions in two cases tomorrow, including a case that addresses whether minors have a constitutional right to possess firearms.

State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2 (briefs and argument). Christopher Sieyes, a 17-year-old, was pulled over for speeding, and a gun was found under the front seat of his car. State law prohibits minors from possessing guns (with limited exceptions) and Sieyes was charged and convicted of criminal possession of a firearm. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the state statute prohibiting minors from possessing guns is a violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. More broadly, the Court may consider the proper test for analyzing a violation of the right to bear arms, and whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to states.

State v. Gonzalez, No. 26070-4 (briefs and argument). In 2003 Robert Gonzalez attacked a man with a metal bar, seriously injured the man, and robbed him of his vehicle. As part of a judgment and sentence, Robert Gonzalez was ordered to pay $20,886 in restitution in June 2004. In June 2006, the prosecutor moved for further restitution in the amount of $25,561 to cover additional medical bills, paid from the crime victims fund. The question before the Court is whether state statutes allow a restitution order to be amended beyond the statutory period, whether under the state and federal constitutions a restitution order is by nature a criminal "punishment," and if it is, whether the amended order constitutes two separate punishments.