D Angus Lee's Legal Cases (22)

Constitutional

State v. Savoie, 164 Wn. App. 156

Sep 13, 2011

OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed.

Defendant's adult-court conviction stemmed from the victim's homicide when they were respectively 12 and 13 years old. The court concluded that the trial court violated defendant's public trial right b ... y closing the courtroom. The closure was intended to protect the victim's family's interest, not defendant's interests, and defendant strenuously objected to the closure. The remedy for the violation of defendant's public trial right was reversal for a new trial. The court further concluded that the trial court erred in appointing counsel for the victim's family and in allowing the victim's family to intervene in this criminal case. Although Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69.030 provided a list of rights to crime victims, survivors, and witnesses, the list did not include provision for appointment of private counsel for the victim or the victim's family or allowing the victim or the victim's survivors to intervene in a criminal case.-Angus Lee serves as supervising attorney on this case.

Criminal defense

State v. Hinshaw, 149 Wn. App. 747

Mar 12, 2009

OUTCOME: Conviction Reversed

The police received a report of a car being driven on a bike path. They located the car parked at defendant's home. Officers knocked on defendant's door. Defendant answered and spoke to the officers th ... rough a closed screen door; he appeared intoxicated, and the officers smelled alcohol. Concerned that defendant's blood-alcohol level was dissipating, one of the officers opened the screen door, reached inside, and grabbed defendant. Defendant stepped back; the officers followed him inside and arrested him. On review, the court held that the warrantless entry violated Wash. Const. art. I, § 7, because the police failed to prove that a warrant could not be obtained before the evidence dissipated and failed to establish exigent circumstances. While the police had probable cause to believe that defendant had been driving while intoxicated, his reckless operation of the car and consequent threat to public safety had ended. There was no suggestion that defendant was armed or dangerous, he posed no threat, imminent or otherwise, to the safety of the officers or the public, and he was not attempting to escape.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained