Standard of review
Washington Supreme Court:
Blake – Consequences of the Blake decision are not self-executing. An arrest warrant issued for an offender pursuant to a void conviction is voidable, but was not automatically void upon publication of the Blake decision. State v. Balles, No. 103582-9 (July 31, 2025).
Pretrial conditions – No authority of law authorizes a judge to order the patting down, handcuffing, and detaining a criminal defendant for the purposes of complying with RCW 10.98.050 (administrative booking.) State v. Evans, No. 103136-0 (July 31, 2025).
Standard of review – The standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial is the same as a jury trial: whether, after viewing all of the evidence, presented in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial court’s written findings and conclusions do not limit appellate review. State v. Roberts, No. 103546-2 (July 31, 2025).
Offender scoring – A point is properly added to the offender score of a defendant who commits a felony while being supervised by Washington DOC under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, regardless of whether the underlying foreign crime is comparable to a Washington offense. State v. Roberts, No. 103546-2 (July 31, 2025).
Recall – A recall petition will be dismissed if the next general election in which the elected official is up for reelection is less than six months away because the recall sponsors cannot meet the time limit in RCW 29A.56.150(1), and a court can no longer provide effective relief. In the Matter of Recall of Ruelas, No. 103542-0 (Jul. 31, 2025).
Division I:
Community custody conditions – A condition of community custody that the offender “remain within geographic boundaries, as set forth in writing by the CCO” is not unconstitutionally vague. RCW 9.94A.704 limits DOC’s authority to those reasonably related to… “[t]he crime of conviction, the offender’s risk of reoffending, or the safety of the community.” State v. Lundstrom, No. 86537-4-I (July 28, 2025).
Sexual assault protection orders – Courts do not need to determine whether the respondent in a SAPO petition has criminal capacity or is old enough to form the criminal intent necessary to commit the alleged crime. Conduct that would not support criminal liability can still be a basis for obtaining a sexual assault protection order. Jones v. Darragh, No. 86397-5-I (Jul. 28, 2025).
Division II:
Conspiracy – A defendant who gave his sister a gun and persuaded her to shoot him at work so he could file an L&I claim can be held criminally liable for Conspiracy to Commit Assault 2 and Conspiracy to Commit Drive-By Shooting. Although the legislature expressly prohibits victims being liable under an Accessory theory, the same is not true for Conspiracy. State v. Floe, No. 59948-1-II (July 29, 2025)
Blake – Due process does not require the State to refund the $370 that defendant paid toward the $500 drug court participation fee because the fee was not from a conviction, but from a contract entered when simple drug possession was a crime. The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause does not apply because the fee was not punitive and therefore was not a fine. The contract doctrine of “frustration” does not require a refund because the $370 was for the State’s partial performance that occurred before Blake frustrated the contract. “Unjust enrichment” does not require a refund because that theory does not apply when there is a contract. “Mutual mistake” does not apply because Blake did not nullify the contract or render defendant’s agreement unknowing or involuntary. Former RCW 10.01.160(3) and Blazina do not apply because the trial court did not sentence the defendant. Extortion does not apply because the State did not unlawfully threaten the defendant into entering the contract. State v. Ward, No. 58969-9-II (July 29, 2025, unpublished)
Foreign cases of interest:
Nondisclosure orders – The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2705, requires that a court issuing a search warrant or subpoena make a determination for each warrant or subpoena that disclosure to the user would harm the government’s case. A court cannot issue a blanket nondisclosure Order that applies to all future warrants or subpoenas in an investigation. In Re: Sealed Case, No. 24-5089 (D.C. Cir., July 18, 2025).
Sex offenders – States may require convicted sex offenders to participate in a sex-offender program as a condition of parole without providing any more process than a criminal trial (or a plea) on the underlying offense. McClendon El v. Washington, et al., No. 24-1849 (6th Cir., July 21, 2025).
Second Amendment – A federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) prohibiting firearm possession by a person previously involuntarily committed to a mental institution, but now released, is not facially unconstitutional because situations exist where the statute may be applied consistent with the Second Amendment. Release from a mental institution (in West Virginia) is not equivalent to a judicial determination that the person is no longer dangerous. United States v. Gould, No. 24-4192 (4th Cir. July 29, 2025).