Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Court’s Decision Not to Realign Parties in DVPO Case

May 19, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) requires a court to issue a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) if the petitioner proves, by the preponderance of the evidence, they have been the subject of domestic violence committed by the respondent. “Domestic violence” includes “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear” thereof. RCW 7.105.010(9). RCW 7.105.210 allows the court to “realign the designation of the parties” in a proceeding involving a DVPO or antiharassment protection order if it finds the original petitioner was the abuser or harasser and the original respondent was the victim. The court may then issue a temporary protection order to allow the victim an opportunity to file their own petition.

In a recent unpublished case, the trial court declined to realign the parties and issue a DVPO protecting the husband, and he appealed. According to the opinion, the wife had petitioned for legal separation in 2023 after about ten years of marriage. She subsequently petitioned for a DVPO to restrain the husband from contacting her and the children. She alleged she was concerned about his alcohol and drug use and that she was “very much afraid” of him when he was under the influence.

She also alleged that he had thrown her into a door in January 2020. She also said that he struck her in the face and pushed her down when she confronted him about his substance use in May 2022, while the children were in the adjoining room. She submitted photographs of her injuries. She also described an incident in which the husband yelled at one of the children and blamed him for a college football team’s loss.

Washington Appeals Court Determines Deferred Prosecution Not Limited to 5 Years

May 9, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In some circumstances, a person charged with a Washington misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor may petition for deferred prosecution. Deferred prosecution can be an alternative to punishment for individuals who would benefit from treatment. The individual generally must cooperate with and complete the treatment program. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could “extend” a deferred prosecution order.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence (“DUI”) in December 2013. She petitioned for a deferred prosecution and the court accepted the petition and approved the treatment plan for her alcohol use disorder.

Multiple probation officers notified the court the defendant violated the conditions of the order between 2015 and 2021.

Fourth Circuit Addresses Sovereign and Qualified Immunity and Cross-Examination in Title IX Discipline Case

April 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fourth Circuit recently considered sovereign and qualified immunity in a case arising from a university’s investigatory and disciplinary procedures of a complaint of sexual misconduct against a student.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a student at a North Carolina university when four female students submitted a joint complaint to the university alleging he committed sexual misconduct.

He was notified about the complaint in May 2021 and placed on interim suspension. His scholarship was suspended indefinitely. The plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was denied.

Washington Law Prohibiting Inclusion of Most Juvenile Adjudications in Offender Score Applies Prospectively

April 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington juvenile adjudication of guilt can have lifelong consequences. Current Washington law limits the types of adjudications that can be included in calculating an offender score for a subsequent sentencing, but until recently, other non-violent juvenile adjudications could also affect an offender score. In a recent case, the state challenged a trial court’s application of the 2023 statutory amendment limiting the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in an offender score because the amendment took effect after the offense occurred.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery in April 2023. The legislature amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) in July 2023, which was after the incident leading to the charges and before the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing. The amended statute prohibits most juvenile adjudications from being included in a defendant’s offender score.

The defendant pleaded guilty in October. He had previously been adjudicated guilty of second degree assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile. This adjudication would have been 2 points under RCW 9.94A.525 before the amendment. The trial court, however, applied the current version of the statute because it took effect before calculation of the defendant’s offender score and his sentencing. The trial court determined the defendant had an offender score of 0, resulting in a standard sentencing range of three to nine months. The court sentenced him to five months confinement.

Washington Court Denies Waste Claim and Spousal Maintenance after Long-Term Marriage

April 18, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The court in a Washington divorce case must make a just and equitable division of the marital estate, considering certain statutory factors. Those factors include the nature and extent of community property and separate property, the length of the marriage, and the economic circumstances of each party when the property division becomes effective. RCW 26.09.080. A former wife recently appealed the property division in her divorce.

According to the appeals court opinion, the parties married in 1978 and separated in 2014. The wife was a teacher, but became a stay-at-home parent after the parties’ children were born. She returned to work after 10 years. When the parties separated, she was working full-time as a school counselor, earning about $59,600 per year. By trial, she had voluntarily gone part-time.

The husband was also a teacher for most of the marriage, but had been a principal for the last four years. He earned $95,972 per year at the time of trial. He also earned money fishing in Alaska in the summers, averaging a net profit of $62,372.

Washington Appeals Court Addresses Mixed-Motive Traffic Stop

April 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A defendant recently challenged his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (“UPF”). The convictions arose from a traffic stop, which the defendant argued was pretextual. He also challenged his UPF conviction on constitutional grounds.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a police officer on patrol saw a parked vehicle pull out without signaling. The bumper obscured the front plate and the rear plate light was not working. He stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the defendant.

The officer saw drug paraphernalia in an open bag on the seat. The defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked that consent. The officer obtained a warrant and seized evidence from the vehicle, including a handgun, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia.

Federal Court Denies Use of Pseudonym by Accused Student in Title IX Case

March 31, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Title IX accusations can have a detrimental effect on a student’s education, job prospects, and future. Alleged victims who file suit against their schools for claims related to Title IX often litigate the case under a pseudonym. Accused students who file suit for claims arising from a Title IX complaint against them also often seek to proceed under a pseudonym. In a recent nonprecedential disposition, the Seventh Circuit has again denied an accused student the use of a pseudonym in litigation.

The plaintiff was a student at an Illinois university when another student, identified by the court as “Jane Roe,” filed a Title IX complaint against him. Following an investigation, the university found the plaintiff culpable and charged him with sexual assault and drug-related offenses. The plaintiff and Roe had both reportedly ingested “molly” before the incident. The plaintiff was ultimately dismissed from the university.

He filed suit against various university defendants, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, reinstatement of his status as a full-time student, and reversal of the findings. He alleged the university did not provide him with sufficient due process and had discriminated against him based on race, gender, and disability during the investigation.

Washington Appeals Court Reverses Second Degree Assault Conviction Based on Merger Doctrine

March 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Generally, the state can bring multiple charges arising from the same conduct in one proceeding, but double jeopardy protections under both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions protect a Washington criminal defendant from multiple punishments for the same offense. If a defendant is charged under different statutes for the same act, the court must determine if those crimes are the same offense. A Washington defendant recently challenged his robbery and assault convictions, arguing they violated his double jeopardy protections.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant took trading cards and a package of tuna from a Walmart store on Black Friday in 2021. Loss prevention officers (“LPOs”) thought he was behaving suspiciously when they saw him selecting the cards.

Two LPOs followed him while another observed through the surveillance feed. The LPOs saw him go past the registers without making a purchase. They stopped him in the vestibule. The defendant turned over a box of trading cards and the tuna and moved past one of the LPOs. The two LPOs testified that he had shoved one of them, but the defendant denied it.

Application of Relocation Presumption to Graduated Residential Schedule in Washington Parenting Plan

March 22, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Often, after a divorce or break-up, one parent may wish to relocate. Relocation of a child under a Washington custody order is governed by the child relocation act (“CRA”). A parent with shared custody must notify the other parent when they wish to relocate. If the other parent objects, the court must hold a hearing. The CRA presumes that relocation will be permitted, but that presumption may be rebutted if the detrimental effect of relocation outweighs its benefit to the child and the relocating parent, based upon statutory factors. Those factors include: the child’s relationships with their parents, siblings, and other significant individuals; prior agreements between the parents; whether there are restrictions on either parent’s residential time; the child’s age, development, and needs and how relocation would affect the child’s development; the resources, quality of life, and opportunities available to the child and parent at both locations; and financial impact. RCW 56.09.520. The presumption does not apply, however, if the parents share substantially equal residential time with the child. RCW 26.09.525. When the presumption does not apply, the court must determine the child’s best interest by considering the statutory factors set forth in RCW 56.09.520.

In a recent case, a mother appealed a court order denying relocation, arguing the trial court improperly determined each parent’s residential time based on the totality of the parenting plan instead of basing it on the phase of the graduated residential schedule that was in effect at the time she filed her motion. According to the appeals court, the parties had one child during their marriage and divorced when the child was two.

The permanent parenting plan made the mother the primary residential parent and gave the father a graduated residential schedule. He would have residential time with the child three nights each two weeks, increasing to four after three months, and then increasing to six when the child turned three. The parents would have equal residential time when the child started kindergarten.

Washington Appeals Court Determines Juvenile’s Case Was Improperly Dismissed with Prejudice

March 13, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Pursuant to CrR 8.3(a), a Washington trial court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint upon motion of the prosecutor. Pursuant to CrR 8.3(b), the court may dismiss a prosecution because of governmental misconduct or arbitrary action if the defendant’s rights have been prejudiced, materially affecting his right to a fair trial. Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c), the court must dismiss without prejudice if the court grants a defendant’s motion for pretrial dismissal because of insufficient evidence. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could dismiss a criminal case with prejudice when the state had moved for dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a).

According to the opinion, a juvenile defendant, identified by the appeals court as “WH” was charged with third degree malicious mischief, first degree animal cruelty, and second degree assault by strangulation, and harassment – threats to kill, arising from an incident involving his girlfriend, identified as “KM.” He made a preliminary appearance in juvenile court. The state added charges for attempted second degree murder and, alternatively, second degree attempted felony murder and transferred the case to adult court.

The state subsequently asked to return the case to juvenile court with the attempted murder charges dismissed. The juvenile was arraigned again under the original case number and pleaded not guilty in juvenile court.