Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington Supreme Court

State v. Powell

Despite what you read below, I assure you, the objection was preserved (don't believe me? check out the end).

Powell was charged with breaking into his girlfriend's home. The trial court allowed evidence that he had ingested meth to show his mental state under 404(b). The court of appeals reversed. Unfortunately, Powell's counsel didn't object to the testimony, and later only objected to questions of witness credibility.

Defense counsel objected to the victims testimony of drugs:

I don't want the word drug used anywhere in this trial.  It's not a trial about drugs and I'd prefer -- my problem is you say methamphetamines and drugs, he's going to jail. I don't want that to happen. I -- it's not a trial about drugs. I want to keep that out in particular.

However, defense counsel acquiesced regarding a witnesses testimony of drug use:

And this Greg guy, I guess, can bring out that testimony. If in fact he was doing drugs with the Defendant the night before, he can bring . . . that stuff out, I imagine.  But the things that Greg said was he was -- he told me he was going to get his son.

The guilty verdict was affirmed (and the court of appeals reversed). The concurrence (of 3) felt it was error to admit it under 404(b), but that error was harmless:

Rather, at the beginning of the colloquy over the admission of ER 404(b) evidence Powell's counsel plainly objected to the admission of any drug evidence based on its potential for prejudice.

The dissent (of 2) skirted around any discussion of harmless error, instead focusing on the preservation of the objection and on a lack of expert testimony that, though amphetamine was ingested, it had any affect on state of mind.

And if you're keeping track...this means the objection was found to have been preserved (5 votes preserved to 4 votes not preserved).

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.