Tomorrow the Senate Law and Justice Committee will hear testimony on three measures aimed at addressing recent Washington State Supreme Court decisions.
COMMITTEE details:
Date: Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 17
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: Senate Hearing Rm. 4, J.A. Cherberg Building, Olympia
Public Hearing:
- SB 6099 – Appointing a representative for a crime victim in certain circumstances, in response to the decision in Washington v. MacDonald.
- SB 6134 – Exempting pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring programs from statutory limitations on pretrial supervision costs, an issue arising from the Court’s decision in Washington v. Hardtke.
- Lawsuits and constitutional rights of speech and petition [S-3276.1], necessitated by the Court’s ruling in Davis, et al. v Cox, et al.
Work Session: Department of Corrections’ plan for housing prisoners out-of-state.
NOTE: The committee will review an amendment to Senate Bill 6099, a bill dealing with appointing a representative to speak on behalf of a deceased crime victim when there is no one else to speak for them. The bill, known as the Victims’ Voice Act, is sponsored by Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley and the chair of the committee. The amendment incorporates suggestions made during a May 12 hearing, including adding the option for a victim’s advocates to testify in lieu of an investigating officer.
*******
BACKGROUND:
The Victims’ Voice Act is in response to a controversial ruling by the Washington Supreme Court in April that a detective’s testimony on behalf of an 80-year-old murder victim, urging the court to reject a plea agreement and give her killer a harsher sentence, violated the defendant’s due-process rights.
In 1978 Arlene Roberts was found dead in her home. She was 80 years old. The cause of death was asphyxiation by strangulation. In 2010 detective Scott Thompson reviewed the case files and matched fingerprints from the crime scene to Ronald Wayne MacDonald.
MacDonald agreed to a plea deal of a five-year suspended sentence for second-degree manslaughter. The victim had no estate or surviving family to speak on her behalf. At sentencing, Detective Thompson spoke as the representative of the victim and asked the court to impose the maximum sentence, and the deal was rejected by the trial judge.
The Washington state constitution and laws grant crime victims basic and fundamental rights. The victim has a right to attend the criminal trial and related court proceedings, and to make a statement at sentencing or any proceeding where the defendant’s release is considered. If the victim is deceased, incompetent, a minor, or otherwise unavailable, the prosecuting attorney may identify a representative to appear to exercise the victim’s rights.
Under Padden’s bill, if a crime victim is deceased and has no estate or surviving family or any other representative, a prosecuting attorney may appoint an investigative law enforcement officer to serve as a representative of the victim during the sentencing hearing. A law enforcement officer appointed as a representative of the victim would be permitted to make a sentencing recommendation that is different from that provided in a plea agreement.
Frederick Hardtke was charged with two counts of second degree rape, one count of second degree assault, two counts of fourth degree assault, and malicious mischief. All were alleged to be acts of domestic violence that took place while Hardtke claimed he was blacked out from alcohol abuse.
At his arraignment, the trial court imposed conditions of release, including that Hardtke not consume alcohol, pay a performance bond, and wear an electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial. Hardtke objected multiple times to paying for the cost of the bracelet, but he wore the bracelet as a condition of his release. Hardtke eventually pleaded guilty to amended charges, and as part of his sentence he was ordered to reimburse the county for the cost of the alcohol monitoring. He appealed, challenging only the imposition of this cost. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court held that under the facts of the case, the costs for an electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet fit under the statutory meaning of “pretrial supervision.” Because the trial court imposed nearly $4,000 in monitoring costs, the court reversed and remanded for imposition of costs consistent with the statute.
The practical effect of Washington v. Hardtke is that courts can no longer impose reasonable, pretrial supervision, intended to protect victims and the public at-large. Senator Padden’s bill in response to the decision would clarify that the $150 limitation on costs for pretrial supervision does not apply to those for pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring.
Draft Bill S-3276.1
In the case of Davis, et al. v Cox, et al., 16 current and former members of the Olympia Food Co-op Board of Directors were sued by five co-op members over the board’s decision to boycott Israeli goods. The defendants argued that the action was an illegal Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) that should be dismissed as it attempts to chill the board’s public statements on an issue of public interest.
The Washington State Supreme Court rejected this claim, and on May 28, 2015, found the anti-SLAPP statute unconstitutional.
The proposed bill would reinstate the Anti-SLAPP law, with changes aimed at satisfying the concerns of the Supreme Court by adopting a “summary judgement” standard.