State v. Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d 871, 434 P.3d 58 (2019) (rejecting federal attenuation doctrine, instead adopting only an “extremely narrow” attenuation exception under our state constitution and holding Mayfield’s conviction must be reversed).

 

State v. Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672, 416 P.3d 712 (2018) (holding a community custody condition to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad).

State v. Kitt, 9 Wn. App. 2d, 442 P.3d 1280 (2019) (convictions for first degree murder and four counts of first degree assault reversed because trial counsel had a conflict of interest that affected his representation and the trial court erred by not allowing counsel to withdraw). 

State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 191 Wn.2d 798, 425 P.3d 807 (2018) (as a matter of first impression, Supreme Court reverses nine felony convictions, concluding that the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict is violated where there exists a reasonable possibility that a trial judge dismissed an impaneled juror because of that juror's views of the sufficiency of the evidence). 

State v. Barnes, 189 Wn.2d 492, 403 P.2d 72 (2017) (theft of a motor vehicle charge properly dismissed where, as a matter of law, a riding lawnmower cannot be a “motor vehicle” under Washington statutes)

 

State v. Irby, 187 Wn. App. 183, 347 P.3d 1103 (2015) (aggravated murder convictions reversed based on biased juror; burglary conviction and aggravating circumstances on murder charge dismissed based on insufficient evidence)

 

State v. Nickerson, 200 Wn. App. 1069 (2017) (unpublished) (convictions for delivering methamphetamine reversed based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel and improper comments by trial judge)

State v. MacDonald, 183 Wn.2d 1, 346 P.3d 748 (2015) (investigating police officer undermined a plea agreement when he advocated for a longer sentence than recommended in the agreement; breach of plea agreement meant that Mr. MacDonald could choose to either withdraw his plea or to seek “specific performance” of the original agreement)

 

State v. Wences, ___ Wn.2d ___, 406 P.3d 267 ( 2017) (new rule of criminal procedure applies to all cases pending on direct review at the time the rule is announced, with no exception for absconding defendants; thus, even though Mr. Wences was tried in 2005, a new rule announced before his 2015 judgment and sentence applied to his case, leading to a reduced sentence)

 

In re Dependency of J.Q.L.-R., 193 Wn. App. 1047 (2016)(unpublished) (reversing termination of parental rights as to two children; DSHS failed to appropriately adapt the court-ordered services to the mother’s needs, including her need for a Spanish-speaking provider)

 

State v. Bluford, 188 Wn.2d 298, 393 P.3d 1219 (2017) (reversal of eight convictions due to improper joinder; reversal of life sentence because prosecution did not prove prior strike offenses)

 

In re Adoption of T.A.W., 186 Wn.2d 828, 383 P.3d 492 (2016) (reversal of parental rights termination due to failure to comply with Indian Child Welfare Act)

 

State v. Z.U.E., 183 Wn.2d 610, 352 P.3d 796 (2015) (police lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate stop, requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of conviction)

 

State v. Wilson, 1 Wn. App. 2d 73, 404 P.3d 76 (2017) (reversing both convictions for the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meaning of “attempt,” as well as erroneous admission of improper propensity evidence)

 

State v. Whittaker, 192 Wn. App. 395, 367 P.3d 1092 (2016) (dismissing conviction for felony violation of a court order because it merged into the defendant’s conviction for felony stalking)

 

State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644, 364 P.3d 830 (2015) (striking common community custody condition prohibiting the defendant from frequenting areas “where minor children are known to congregate” as void for vagueness)

 

State v. I.B., 187 Wn. App. 315, 348 P.3d 1250 (2015) (on issue of first impression, Court of Appeals found client’s shaking his head in the negative after being asked if he was willing to talk to police constituted unequivocal assertion of right to remain silent requiring suppression of client’s custodial statements)

State v. Grant, 196 Wn. App. 644, 385 P.3d 184 (2016) (declining to impose appellate costs against client and concluding that a criminal defendant is not required to address appellate costs in his or her briefing to preserve the ability to object to the imposition of costs after the State files a cost bill)

State v. Fast, 198 Wn. App. 1002 (2017) (unpublished)(conviction for harassment-domestic violence reversed and dismissed because insufficient evidence that client’s statements amounted a ‘true threat’ within the meaning of the First Amendment)

 

State v. Kidder, 197 Wn. App. 292, 389 P.3d 664 (2016) (upholding dismissal of prosecution after 90-day competency restoration period expired because Western State Hospital’s long delays violated both defendants’ statutory and due process rights)

 

State v. Hamilton, 196 Wn. App. 461, 383 P.3d 1062 (2016) (reversing third strike conviction because prosecution improperly cross-examined defense expert with opinions of nontestifying experts that defense expert did not rely on in forming his opinion)

 

State v. Fuentes/Sandoz, 183 Wn.2d 149, 352 P.3d 152 (2015) (suppressing evidence and reversing conviction because police lacked reasonable suspicion based on Sandoz’s mere presence and association with others in a so-called “high crime” area)

 

State v. Kohonen, 192 Wn. App. 567, 370 P.3d 16 (2016) (A 15-year-old girl was convicted of cyberstalking based on two “tweets” she posted online.  Because the cyberstalking statute criminalizes pure speech, the state was required to prove she should have anticipated her tweets would be interpreted as a serious expression of intent to do harm rather than mere hyperbole.  The court reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence of a true threat)

 

State v. Farzad, 198 Wn. App. 1018 (2017) (unpublished) (A psychiatrist was convicted of telephone harassment based on phone calls he made to an insurance company. The charging document named two employees who answered the calls. But the evidence included similar statements in calls to three different employees. Because the to-convict jury instruction failed to specify which call or which person, there was a risk that the jury convicted based on uncharged conduct. Reversed)

 

State v. Camarata, 186 Wn. App. 695, 346 P.3d 822 (2015) (Mr. Camarata was convicted of providing false information on a voter registration application and a declaration of candidacy. The to-convict jury instructions required the jury to find that he did so in Kittitas County. Yet the State’s own evidence showed Mr. Camarata was homeless and likely transmitted the information from outside the county. The court held the jury instructions were the law of the case, and the state failed to prove the added element that the conduct occur within Kittitas County. The convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence)

 

State v. Fife, 200 Wn. App. 1041 (2017) (unpublished) (reversed and remanded for resentencing because trial court applied wrong legal standard in rejecting request for mitigated exceptional sentence based on failed duress defense)

 

State v. Morfin-Camacho, 195 Wash. App. 1057 (2016) (unpublished)(burglary and drug possession convictions reversed because trial court failed to establish a valid waiver of defendant’s right to counsel before he proceeded pro se)

 

In re Crow, 187 Wash. App. 414, 349 P.3d 902 (2015) (aggravated exceptional sentence for murder reversed because insufficient evidence of “good Samaritan” aggravator and court improperly took into account potential earned early release in setting sentence length)