Case Law

U.S. Supreme Court:

Restitution – Restitution under the Mandatory Crime Victim’s Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the ex post facto clause and cannot be imposed on defendants who committed their crimes before passage of the Act.  Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482 (January 20, 2026).

(Editor’s note:  This case deals with restitution under a federal provision of law and is not binding on cases where restitution is ordered pursuant to state law.  The case is included to defend against frivolous arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that all restitution is punitive.  The case only holds that it is punitive for the purposes of an ex post facto analysis.  Washington courts have held that restitution under the SRA is both compensatory and punitive, and restitution under the SRA cannot be imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Act.)

Division I:

Right to silence –  An individual may invoke the right to silence before they are in custody or the subject of suspicion or investigation because the right originates from the Fifth Amendment, not Miranda (citing State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 243 (1996)).  Here, the defendant invoked the right when her attorney informed police, before she was in custody or under arrest, not to contact the defendant.  The state violated the right by eliciting testimony, during its case in chief, that the defendant failed to reach out to investigators, call, check in, or provide information about the case.  The case Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) did not overrule Easter because the court in Salinas did not decide whether defendants can assert the right to silence pre-custody and pre-arrest.  Instead, the court in Salinas held the defendant did not invoke his right to silence.  State v. Ianniciello, No. 86711-3-I (Jan. 20, 2026, substitute published opinion)