Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Court Upholds Marijuana Manufacture Conviction

October 8, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: HubbardSteve / Shutterstock.com

Washington criminal defense attorneys understand that people sometimes face drug charges because they were in a vehicle or a home where drugs were present. This can be particularly true of the owner or resident of the property where the drugs were found. Although a landlord generally cannot be held liable for a tenant’s criminal actions just because he or she failed to evict the tenant, a Washington appeals court recently upheld a conviction of a woman whose boyfriend allegedly had a marijuana grow operation in her home.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the defendant lived in a home owned by her stepmother with no formal lease agreement. She shared the home with her children, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend’s brother. The police executed a search warrant and found 27 marijuana plants in the back yard, marijuana in the kitchen, and drying marijuana and glass pipes in the basement. The defendant was charged with manufacturing marijuana. She testified that the marijuana was her boyfriend’s and denied any involvement with the marijuana grow. She testified she had asked him to stop, but he did not do so. She admitted it was her choice to allow her boyfriend to remain at the residence.

Washington Child Support and Abdication of Visitation

October 8, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Andrey_Popov / Shutterstock.com

When a parent does not exercise his or her visitation time, the child is obviously affected, but so is the other parent. In addition to any scheduling issues that may result, there are also financial effects on the other parent. A parent who completely stops visitation may reduce his or her own child-related expenses while increasing those of the other parent. A Washington appeals court recently held that, in a Washington family law case, a court may deviate from the standard calculation to put a greater child support obligation on a parent who abdicates visitation.

Facts and History of the Case

In this case, the parties had been divorced since 2004. Under a modified parenting plan, the father had residential time with the two children on Wednesday evenings, every other weekend, and half of holidays, school vacations, and other special occasions. The mother sought an increase in child support above the standard calculation in 2013. She argued she had an increased financial burden because the father had abdicated his residential time with the children. The trial court found the father had voluntarily stopped having contact with the children in late 2010. The trial court found it was not authorized to deviate from the standard calculation due to the father’s lack of residential time because the combined monthly income of the parties was less than $12,000. On appeal, the appeals court found the trial court did have the authority to deviate from the standard calculation where a parent lessens his or her financial responsibility by abdicating visitation. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court to make appropriate findings and determine the appropriate deviation.

Failure to Mitigate Damages in Washington Personal Injury Case

October 1, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: DedMityay / Shutterstock.com

A defendant in a Washington personal injury case may try to limit damages by alleging the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. A defendant seeking a failure to mitigate jury instruction must show that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in deciding on treatment when there were alternative options. The defendant must show through expert testimony that the alternative treatment would more likely than not improve the plaintiff’s condition. A defendant recently challenged a court’s decision not to instruct the jury on failure to mitigate in an automobile collision case.

According to the appeal court’s opinion, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff went to a chiropractor who found she had a ligament injury as a result of the accident. The chiropractor also found the injury was permanent.

The plaintiff filed suit and the defendant admitted liability, leaving only damages at issue for trial. According to the opinion, the plaintiff worked as a licensed practical nurse. She testified she had talked with her colleagues about her treatment options. She did not want to take medications that would interfere with her work, or to have surgery or injections. She testified the chiropractic treatments helped manage her pain. She also testified that immobilization was no longer recommended and that no one she talked to recommended it to her.

Washington No-Contact Order Precludes a Defense of Property Defense

October 1, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Lukatme / Shutterstock.com

Violation of a Washington no-contact order is generally a gross misdemeanor. In some circumstances, however, it can be elevated to a class C felony if the violation includes an assault. Defense of property can be an affirmative defense to assault. The Washington Supreme Court has recently reviewed a case in which the defendant sought a jury instruction on defense of property as an affirmative defense to felony violation of a no-contact order.

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant checked his car after thinking he saw someone near it. His phone and other items were missing. The defendant saw his former girlfriend walking down the street. There was a no-contact order prohibiting the defendant from coming near or having any contact with her at the time. He followed her and tried to take her purse to retrieve his phone. A witness testified to seeing a man hit a woman, then lift her off the ground and slam her back down. According to the appeal court’s opinion, the defendant denied hitting her.

The defendant was charged with felony violation of a no-contact order predicated on assault. He requested a jury instruction on defense of property. The judge, however, found he “was acting offensively, not defensively…” and was not entitled to the instruction. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed, arguing he had been improperly denied the jury instruction. The appeals court affirmed, finding the defendant was not entitled to the defense because he used force to try to recover the property, not prevent its theft.

Washington Court May Order Domestic Violence Treatment

September 14, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Tiko Aramyan / Shutterstock.com

When a court sentences a defendant to community custody in a Washington criminal case, there are some conditions the court must impose and others that the court may impose in the court’s discretion. These conditions are set forth in RCW 9.94A.703. Pursuant to the statute, the court may require an offender to “[p]articipate in crime-related treatment or counseling services” or “in rehabilitative programs” that are reasonably related to the offense, the risk of reoffending, or community safety. Additionally, a court may order an offender convicted of a domestic violence crime to participate in a domestic violence perpetrator program, if either the offender or the victim have a minor child.

In a recent case, a defendant challenged the imposition of domestic violence treatment. The defendant was convicted of second degree assault, unlawful imprisonment, and felony harassment of his former girlfriend. The jury found the defendant and the victim were members of the same family or household.

Distribution of Employee Stock Awards in Washington Divorce

September 14, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Ruslan Grumble / Shutterstock.com

In a Washington divorce, the court must characterize the assets as separate or community property. While categorizing some types of property are fairly straightforward, others can be more complicated. Employee stock options, for example, are characterized based on when they were acquired. The court must look not only at when the stock options were granted, but also when they vest and what they were intended to compensate.

If the stock options are vested, they are acquired when granted. However, the court must apply the “time rule” to unvested stock options. The time rule is a formula that allocates the stock options according to the services performed before and after separation. The court must first determine if the employee received the stock options as compensation for past, present, or future services. Unvested stock options granted for present services during the marriage while the spouses are living together are acquired when they are granted. If the unvested stock options compensate for future services, they are acquired as they vest. Once it makes this determination, the court then must apply the time rule to the first stock option to vest after the separation date.

Vicarious Liability in Washington Automobile Accidents

August 31, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: tonkid / Shutterstock.com

An employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees in a Washington automobile accident case when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment. An employee is acting within the scope of employment when engaged in the performance of duties required or directed by the employer or engaged in the furtherance of the employer’s interest. An employee is not acting within the scope of employment when engaged in conduct involving a personal objective that is not related to the employer’s business. The issue of vicarious liability was recently before a Washington appeals court.

The defendant driver failed to stop in time to avoid rear-ending the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. The defendant driver works as a regional manager for the defendant employer. He works from his home and frequently travels for his job. The defendant employer provides him with a monthly vehicle allowance for the cost of his vehicle and insurance. The defendant employer also reimburses 80% of his vehicle maintenance and operation expenses. The defendant driver did not tell his employer about the accident.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant driver and he admitted liability for the accident. The defendant employer was subsequently added to the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs ultimately added a vicarious liability claim against it. The defendant driver testified in his deposition that he was driving home after working at the time of the accident.

Felony Enhancement in Washington DUI Cases

August 31, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: Paul Biryukov / Shutterstock.com

A misdemeanor Washington DUI can be elevated to a felony under some circumstances, including a prior conviction for “[v]ehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.” To elevate a charge, the state must prove the existence of the conviction and that it relates to the defendant. Vehicular assault is an alternative means offense, with three alternatives, but not all of the alternatives qualify for the enhancement. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether the state had proved a defendant’s prior conviction for vehicular assault qualified for the enhancement.

The defendant was charged with a DUI in 2016. The state alleged the defendant’s prior conviction for vehicular assault while under the influence made the current offense a felony. After finding the defendant had committed DUI, the jury was then asked to determine whether the defendant had a qualifying prior vehicular assault conviction. The state introduced the court records from the previous conviction as well as testimony from a police officer. The jury found the defendant had a prior vehicular assault while under the influence of alcohol conviction.

The defendant appealed, arguing the state did not produce sufficient evidence to elevate the offense to a felony. He argued the evidence only established a generic conviction for vehicular assault, rather than showing that he was convicted of vehicular assault while under the influence pursuant to RCW 46.61.522(1)(b).

Postsecondary Educational Support in Washington

August 23, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Photo Credit: zimmytws / Shutterstock.com

Courts have broad discretion in ordering postsecondary educational support in Washington family law cases. Washington law sets out a number of factors courts should consider, including the parent’s expectations for the child, the child’s aptitude, the nature of the education sought, and the parents’ level of education. RCW 26.19.090(2). If the court considers the factors, it does not abuse its discretion in awarding postsecondary educational support.

A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court abused its discretion in modifying an order for postsecondary educational support. The father had obtained modification of child support through default after the mother did not appear or respond to his petition. The modified child support order required the mother to pay for postsecondary educational support and 52% of the son’s uncovered medical expenses. She was also required to maintain a life insurance policy. The order allowed either parent to petition for modification as long as the son was enrolled full time in school until the age of 24.

The mother subsequently moved to reduce her child support obligation. The husband moved to dismiss, arguing that there was not a substantial change in circumstances to justify the modification. The appeals court noted, however, that the default order had provided for modification. The court considered the financial evidence and how the parties expected their son’s college to be funded. The court lowered the postsecondary support payment and eliminated the obligation to pay uncovered medical expenses and maintain life insurance. The court also ordered all future postsecondary support payments be made to the son. The father appealed.

Washington Court Must Accept Defendant’s Stipulation of No-Contact Order

August 8, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

To convict a defendant of felony violation of a no-contact order, the state must prove that an order existed and that the defendant knew of the order. The order is therefore generally relevant and likely admissible. In a recent case, however, the defendant challenged the admission of a no-contact order because he had stipulated to the existence of his order and his knowledge of it.The defendant was charged with several Washington domestic violence offenses, including felony violation of a no-contact order, after the woman with whom he was living told police he assaulted her. The defendant was under Department of Corrections supervision at the time. The defendant pleaded guilty to some of the charges, but the charge for felony violation of a no-contact order went to trial.

The state planned to admit two no-contact orders into evidence. To prove the charge, the state would have to prove that there was a no-contact order in place and that the defendant knew of it. The defendant requested that the no-contact order be excluded because he had agreed to stipulate to knowing of its existence. The judge ultimately admitted the no-contact order over the defendant’s objection.