WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEKS OF MAY 27, 2025
Washington Supreme Court:
Confrontation clause – The confrontation clause prohibits crime laboratory supervisors from testifying about test results reached by a nontestifying subordinate. If the ultimate opinion hinges upon whether a statement from a lab analyst is true, that analyst must testify for the ultimate opinion to be admissible. State v. Hall-Haught, No. 102405-3 (May 29, 2025).
(Editor’s note: Justice González’ points out in a brief concurrence that it remains unclear what statements that form the basis of an expert’s opinion must be subject to cross examination.)
Division I:
General-specific rule – Escape, RCW 9A.76.110, and Failure to Appear or Surrender, RCW 9A.76.190, are concurrent statutes. Therefore, an offender who fails to report to jail must be charged with Failure to Appear or Surrender, the crime specific to this conduct. State v. Widders, No. 86849-7-I (May 27, 2025).
Division III:
Attorney-client privilege – A controversy between the client (Mike) and the attorney must exist before the attorney can disclose privileged information to establish a defense to a claim by the client. Here, the controversy was between the estate of a different former client (Bert) and the attorney. Therefore, the attorney could not reveal the confidential contents of Mike’s client file notwithstanding Mike was a witness for Bert’s estate in the controversy. Mike could assert his attorney-client privilege, and the court could decide whether disclosure of his client file was permissible, without Mike being a party and without the court having personal jurisdiction over Mike. Taylor v. Ebenger, No. 39262-7-III (May 27, 2025).