- Winters v. Ingersoll, 012320 WACA, 50959-8-II
- Wrigley v. State, 012320 WASC, 96830-6
- State v. Brooks, 012320 WASC, 97150-1
- In re Personal Restraint of Covert, 012320 WACA, 36511-5-III
- State v. Deleon, 012220 WACA, 51934-8-II
- Pharmacy Corporation of America v. State, Department of Revenue, 012220 WACA, 52685-9-II
- State v. Phet, 012220 WACA, 48877-9-II
- Winters v. Ingersoll, 012220 WACA, 50959-8-II
- State v. Greystoke, 012220 WACA, 51049-9-II
- State v. White, 012220 WACA, 51460-5-II
- 329 P.3d 888 (Wash. 2014), 88118-9, State v. Witherspoon
- 409 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2018), 93545-9, State v. Buckman
Brian Buckman pleaded guilty to second degree rape of a child. After sentencing, Buckman learned that he had been misinformed of the sentencing range that applied to him. Based on this misinformation, Buckman sought to withdraw his plea as involuntary. Because Buckman's motion to withdraw was a...
- 158 P.3d 27 (Wash. 2007), 75312-1, State v. Athan
- 269 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2012), 84148-9, State v. Gresham
- 286 P.3d 673 (Wash. 2012), 84475-5, In re Personal Restraint of Glasmann
- 391 P.3d 409 (Wash. 2017), 92605-1, State v. Houston-Sconiers
The defendants in this case, Zyion Houston-Sconiers and Treson Roberts, were children. On Halloween night in 2012, they were 17 and 16 years old, respectively. They robbed mainly other groups of children, and they netted mainly candy. They were charged with crimes that brought them automatically...
- 396 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2017), 92475-9, State v. Lee
Limiting the scope of that cross-examination was within the court's discretion. Donald Lee was convicted on two counts of third degree rape of a child. The trial court permitted Lee to ask J.W. if she had made a false accusation to police about another person, but it prevented Lee from specifying...
- Washington Public Employees Association, UFCW Local 365 v. Washington State Center, 102419 WASC, 95262-1
- 278 P.3d 653 (Wash. 2012), 86033-5, State v. Emery
- 410 P.3d 1142 (Wash. 2018), 94185-8, In re Personal Restraint of Phelps
The issue before the Washington Supreme Court centered on whether a prosecutor's closing argument asserting a victim was "groomed" by the defendant, where testimony of grooming was disallowed during trial, constituted flagrant and illintentioned misconduct requiring reversal. The Court of Appeals...