Criminal Law

Statement to Police Officer Found Admissible in Washington Domestic Violence Case

July 13, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In Washington domestic violence cases, the prosecution or defense may want to present evidence of what one of the involved parties said about the events. Hearsay evidence is generally not allowed, so such statements must fall within an exception to the hearsay rule to be admissible. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a victim’s statement to a police officer was appropriately admitted into evidence.

The couple lived together in the woman’s home at the time of the incident. They got into an argument and the woman reached to take back a cell phone she had given the defendant. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant wrapped his arm around her neck and strangled her for about 10 seconds.

The woman called 911. When the deputies arrived, the woman described these events to one of them.

Scope of Washington Investigative Stop Can Be Expanded

June 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions prohibit warrantless seizures, unless the state can show an exception applies. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that one such exception is the Terry stop. An officer may briefly detain an individual if he or she has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts the officer knows at the time of the stop. If the activity is consistent with criminal activity, it may justify a brief detention, even if it is also consistent with activity that is not criminal.

A Washington defendant recently challenged her convictions on the ground that the stop was unlawful. After being notified of unauthorized vehicles in his driveway, a man returned home to find he had been burglarized. He reported unauthorized vehicles in his driveway, and two men were arrested. He subsequently found another vehicle on the private road to his house and again called the police. The deputy who responded stopped a vehicle that appeared to be leaving the remote road. The deputy stated the vehicle was “loaded with goods,” so he asked the driver to exit the vehicle. He handcuffed her and put her in the back of his vehicle.

The property owner identified some fluorescent light bulbs in the vehicle as belonging to him. When asked why she was there, the defendant told the deputy she needed to urinate. She was arrested, and officers found a baggie in her jacket that contained a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. She was charged with burglary in the second degree and possession of a controlled substance—methamphetamine.

Washington Supreme Court Finds Search Valid Due to Consent

June 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A homeowner or resident may consent to police searching the home. Washington drug crime attorneys know that a homeowner or resident’s consent can affect others in the home. In a recent case, a defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop following a search of an apartment.

The police found the defendant in a woman’s apartment during a protective sweep in response to a report of an assault and robbery in the apartment by the defendant and two others.

The defendant appealed, arguing the sweep exceeded the scope of the “protective sweep” exception to the warrant requirement.

Washington Appeals Court Finds Requesting ID Not Improper Seizure

April 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Constitution, like the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, protects individuals against unlawful searches and seizures. Evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure may be excluded. Washington drug crime attorneys know that whether evidence is excluded often turns on whether the encounter between the defendant and law enforcement constituted a seizure, as seen in a recent case.

The trial court entered findings of fact based on the undisputed facts. The police received an anonymous tip that a woman with an active arrest warrant was staying in a particular room at a hotel. The hotel clerk told them the room in question was registered to a different name. The clerk told them to trespass from the hotel anyone other than the registered guest in the room.

One of the officers recognized the defendant when she answered the door of the room. She was not the woman for whom they were looking. The defendant told the officers she was the only person in the room. The clerk came to the room and told the officers the defendant was not registered to the room and asked them to trespass her from the room. The officers then told the defendant to gather her things and leave. The officers came into the room to make sure that the woman for whom they were looking was not there and that the defendant did not get a weapon. One officer asked the defendant for her driver’s license so that he could enter her name in the log, indicating she had been trespassed from the hotel, and to check for any active warrants. The system showed she had a misdemeanor warrant. The officers arrested the defendant. She had already gathered her property from the room and asked if she could return it, but she was told she could not. She stated her wallet, phone, and identification were in the purse she had, but it was not her purse, and she did not know anything about any other items in it. The purse was searched incident to her arrest, and the police found a plastic baggie containing a black, tar-like substance wrapped in a goodwill receipt. The substance subsequently tested positive for heroin.

Constructive Possession in Washington Drug Cases

March 21, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In Washington, a person may be convicted of possession of a controlled substance if he or she has actual or constructive possession of the substance. A person has actual possession if he or she has physical custody of the substance. A person has constructive possession if he or she has dominion or control over the item. The dominion and control may be over the substance, or over the premises where it was located. Washington drug crime attorneys may challenge whether the defendant was in possession of the drugs, or even whether the substance in question was a controlled substance. In a recent case, the defendant challenged the evidence of possession and of the nature of the substance.

The police executed a warrant at a trailer. A man and his girlfriend were in the front of the trailer. The police officers found the defendant in a back bedroom with a female and took him into another room. According to the officers, they asked him where his “bulk amount of dope” was, and he gestured with his head toward the room where they found him and said they “might want to check back there.”

The officers found three lines of suspected methamphetamine on a table, two safes, mail addressed to the defendant at another address, knives, a shotgun and a box with shells, two glass pipes, small baggies, and a backpack containing another knife. They opened one safe with a key they found in a pair of pants. Inside the safe, they found a baggie containing 17.62 grams of what they believed to be heroin.

Driving on Neutral Area Between Ramp and Highway Lane is a Violation of Washington Law

February 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington criminal defense attorneys know that the validity of a traffic stop can have a significant effect on a resulting criminal case. A finding that the traffic stop was improper can result in the exclusion of evidence found during the stop. One defendant sought to have evidence suppressed due to a stop she argued was improper in a recent case.

The defendant was pulled over after a trooper saw her vehicle cross over the “neutral area” between the entrance ramp and the highway. The “neutral area” is the paved triangular space between the ramp and the lane of the highway. The neutral area was marked by white lines on both sides. The defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and other misdemeanors.

The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing she was stopped without cause. The trial court denied her motion. The trial court found the defendant violated RCW 46.61.670 by “driving with wheels off roadway” when she merged across the neutral area. The defendant was ultimately convicted by a jury of several misdemeanors.

Deferred Disposition Records May Be Sealed Prior to Juvenile’s 18th Birthday

January 26, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Criminal charges can have lasting negative effects. In many cases involving a juvenile defendant, those effects can be prevented through sealing the record. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that sealing the record prior to the juvenile’s 18th birthday may help prevent negative effects as the young person applies to colleges, but the state sometimes objects to the timing of a record being sealed.

In a recent case, the state appealed the sealing of a juvenile’s deferred disposition record. The juvenile defendant was charged with taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree and theft in the third degree. The trial court granted her a deferred disposition. She complied with the conditions of the deferral and the court vacated her conviction and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The court granted the defendant’s request to seal her juvenile record, and the state appealed. The state argued the trial court could not seal the record until the juvenile turned 18.

Defense of Property and Washington No-Contact Orders

January 1, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property disputes, property damage, or outright theft sometimes occur following a romantic breakup or a fight between romantic partners. While it is understandable for a person to want to retrieve their property, trying to get the property back in violation of a no-contact order could result in criminal charges. Washington civil protection order attorneys know that the theft or property damage may not provide a successful defense to those charges.

A Washington appeals court recently reviewed a case in which the defendant raised a defense of property defense surrounding the violation of a no-contact order. A domestic violence no-contact order prevented the defendant from contacting a woman he had previously dated for several years.

According to the defendant, he was loading boxes from his son’s garage in his car. He left his cell phone in the car, which had a broken window. He saw someone walking down the street but could not tell who it was. When he went back to his car, he found his cell phone and other items were gone.

Excited Utterances May Be Admissible in Washington Even If Partly Untrue

December 7, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many people are aware of the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that a court may admit hearsay evidence if it meets one of a number of exceptions to that general rule. A Washington appeals court recently reviewed a case involving the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

The defendant’s girlfriend had been drinking during the evening of the incident. She left the home for a while after an argument, but she subsequently returned. About 45 minutes later, she called her 16-year-old daughter. According to the daughter, the woman was crying and hysterical and spoke at a high volume. The daughter testified she had trouble understanding her mother. The woman described an assault and told her daughter she had been shot.

The girl gave the phone to her father. The woman’s ex-husband testified that she was hysterical, crying, and very scared. She described an assault and told him the defendant had shot her. The ex-husband called the police.

Washington Supreme Court Rules on State Delay in Disclosing Toxicology Witness

November 22, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington DUI defense attorneys often have to fight vigorously to ensure they get information from the State. In DUI cases, the State sometimes fails to name the toxicologist who will testify until very close to the trial. In one particularly egregious case, the prosecution provided a list of potential witnesses and waited until the morning of the trial to identify the actual witness. We discussed this case following the Court of Appeals decision, and the Washington Supreme Court has recently reviewed it.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Five months before the trial, the State disclosed a list of nine toxicologists, indicating one of them would testify. Two weeks before trial, the defendant filed a supplemental discovery request, seeking identification of the testifying witness. Three days before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss or suppress the testimony. On the day before the trial, the State narrowed the list to three names. It finally identified which toxicologist would testify on the morning of the trial.

The defendant moved to suppress the testimony based on the late disclosure. The trial court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice to the defense. The court also noted that the practice of providing a list rather than disclosing a specific name was caused by underfunding of crime labs rather than mismanagement.