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.

Washington Legal Roundup – Division I

State v. Haines

James Haines entered a convenience store on December 24, 2007.  He began saying, “I want to fuck you, bitch” to one of the employees of the store, Kebrah Bezabih.  She tried to ignore him but he persisted.  Eventually Mr. Haines left the store and Ms. Bezabih followed him outside, fearful that he would harass other customers.

A regular customer tried to convince Ms. Bezabih to come back inside the store and Mr. Haines began saying to her that he was going to kill her.  She called the police, who came and investigated.

A month later, Mr. Haines returned to the store while Ms. Bezabih was working, saying “hey bitch, remember me?  I’m gonna kill you.”  Mr. Haines left the store and Ms. Bezabih called the police again.  Ms. Bezabih feared that Mr. Haines would actually kill her.

Mr. Haines was arrested and charged with felony harassment, malicious harassment, misdemeanor harassment, and misdemeanor stalking.  A jury convicted him of felony harassment, misdemeanor harassment, and misdemeanor stalking.

On appeal, Mr. Haines argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him for stalking since the evidence only involved 2 events.  Mr. Haines argued that 6 instances of harassment were required under the statute.  The court disagreed, holding that the Mr. Haines behavior constituted a “repeated . . . course of conduct” that the statute intended to criminalize.

Mr. Haines also argued that the language of the statute was unconstitutionally vague.  The court disagreed, holding that the proscribed behavior was clear.

Mr. Haines also argued that he was subjected to double jeopardy because he was convicted of both stalking and harassment.  The court disagreed because the facts supporting each conviction were not identical.

Subscribe in a reader

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