burden of establishing exception in Washington

2015State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 349-50 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999). 1 Hankerson also challenges the delayed entry of the CrR 3.6 findings of fact and conclusions of law.

2015State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 349-50 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999). 1 Hankerson also challenges the delayed entry of the CrR 3.6 findings of fact and conclusions of law.

2015Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 .

2015Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 .

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2008State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 425 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). ¶19 No decisions address the specific issue here; that is, was it harmless error for the trial court to impanel a jury before the Blakely-fix statute went into effect to determine aggravating circumstances that would extend Mr. Doney’s sentence?

2008State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 425 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). ¶19 No decisions address the specific issue here; that is, was it harmless error for the trial court to impanel a jury before the Blakely-fix statute went into effect to determine aggravating circumstances that would extend Mr. Doney’s sentence?

2021Mainline, 8 Wn. App. 2d at 609; Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Ellis-Don Const., Inc., 86 Wn. App. 884, 888 , 939 P.2d 1258 (1997).

2021Mainline, 8 Wn. App. 2d at 609; Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Ellis-Don Const., Inc., 86 Wn. App. 884, 888 , 939 P.2d 1258 (1997).

2020RCW 10.77.030(2); State v. Carneh, 153 Wn.2d 274, 282 , 103 P.3d 743 (2004).

2020RCW 10.77.030(2); State v. Carneh, 153 Wn.2d 274, 282 , 103 P.3d 743 (2004).

2019Tatham, 170 Wn.

2019Gallegos, 73 Wn.

2018Id. at 658-59 .

2017Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2017Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2017Tyler, 177 Wn.2d at 698 . ¶17 Law enforcement may lawfully impound a vehicle for three reasons: (1) as evidence of a crime, (2) under the community caretaking function, or (3) when the driver has committed a “traffic offense for which the legislature has expressly authorized impoundment.” Id. ¶18 But even if one of these reasons exists, an officer may impound a vehicle only if there are no reasonable alternatives.

2017Tyler, 177 Wn.2d at 698 . ¶17 Law enforcement may lawfully impound a vehicle for three reasons: (1) as evidence of a crime, (2) under the community caretaking function, or (3) when the driver has committed a “traffic offense for which the legislature has expressly authorized impoundment.” Id. ¶18 But even if one of these reasons exists, an officer may impound a vehicle only if there are no reasonable alternatives.

2016Christianson v. Snohomish Health Dist., 82 Wn.

2016Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

2016In State v. W.R., 181 Wn.2d 757 (2014), the state Supreme Court overruled both State v. Camara and State v. Gregory.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2014No. 70262-9-1/5 private place' and 'receives heightened constitutional protection.'"7 Subject to "'jealously and carefully drawn'" exceptions, a warrantless search is unreasonable.8 The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement "'allows for the limited invasion of constitutionally protected privacy rights when it is necessary for police officers to render aid or assistance.'"9 "This exception emerges from the police's 'community caretaking function' "10 It is "divorced" from a criminal investigation.11 The State bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.

2014App. 409, 415 , 16 P.3d 680 (2001) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 185 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 8 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 72 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Bradley, 105 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 719 P.2d 546 (1986)). 9 Schultz, 170 Wn.2d at 754 (quoting State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 802 , 92 P.3d 228 (2004)). 10 Id, (quoting Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 ). 11 Thompson, 151 Wn.2d at 802 . 12 Schultz, 170Wn.2dat754.

2013State v. Bakke. 44 Wn.

2012Cf. State v. Ashue, 145 Wn.

2008Cf. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (remanding for revision of written findings of fact and conclusions of law based on evidence already heard where findings did not meet requirements of court rule requiring findings to state ultimate facts); State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534 , 805 P.2d 237 (1991) (remanding to permit entry of additional written findings where evidence in the record is sufficient to support the conclusions of law and where insufficiency of the findings can be cured without introduction of new evidence).

2008Cf. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (remanding for revision of written findings of fact and conclusions of law based on evidence already heard where findings did not meet requirements of court rule requiring findings to state ultimate facts); State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534 , 805 P.2d 237 (1991) (remanding to permit entry of additional written findings where evidence in the record is sufficient to support the conclusions of law and where insufficiency of the findings can be cured without introduction of new evidence).

2008Cf. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (remanding for revision of written findings of fact and conclusions of law based on evidence already heard where findings did not meet requirements of court rule requiring findings to state ultimate facts); State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534 , 805 P.2d 237 (1991) (remanding to permit entry of additional written findings where evidence in the record is sufficient to support the conclusions of law and where insufficiency of the findings can be cured without introduction of new evidence).

2008Cf. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995) (remanding for revision of written findings of fact and conclusions of law based on evidence already heard where findings did not meet requirements of court rule requiring findings to state ultimate facts); State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534 , 805 P.2d 237 (1991) (remanding to permit entry of additional written findings where evidence in the record is sufficient to support the conclusions of law and where insufficiency of the findings can be cured without introduction of new evidence).

2000State v. Earls, 116 Wn.2d 364, 378-79 , 805 P.2d 211 (1991).

2000State v. Earls, 116 Wn.2d 364, 378-79 , 805 P.2d 211 (1991).

1932Co., 102 Wash. 27 , 172 Pac. 887 , that the falsity of representations in the application for insurance would not defeat the policy unless it should be further found that they were made with intent to deceive the insurer; that upon the insurer was imposed the burden of establishing the defense of fraudulent intent; that intent to deceive in misrepresenting past illness to be pneumonia when it was tuberculosis, made by the applicant for life insurance, who some time later died of tuberculosis, was a question for the jury.

1932Co., 102 Wash. 27 , 172 Pac. 887 , that the falsity of representations in the application for insurance would not defeat the policy unless it should be further found that they were made with intent to deceive the insurer; that upon the insurer was imposed the burden of establishing the defense of fraudulent intent; that intent to deceive in misrepresenting past illness to be pneumonia when it was tuberculosis, made by the applicant for life insurance, who some time later died of tuberculosis, was a question for the jury.

1912It is a settled principle of constitutional law that, “The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed upon it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those who contend that it' may not select any appropriate means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception.” M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 409 .