Civics 101: Just Because the Deer You Illegally Shot Didn't Die Right Away Doesn't Mean You Didn't Kill It

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

The state appellate court ruled yesterday that when Dean Richard shot a deer illegally, the fact that the fatal blow was delivered by someone else to the dying buck was irrelevant to his guilt in an illegal hunting case.

In 2005, Richard was out hunting in Columbia County, located in the sparsely populated southeast corner of the state, when he took a shot at a three-point buck (the points, for all you vegetarian animal lovers, refer to the number of points on each antler.) At least he thought it was a three-pointer, he told the court. It turned out to be a two-point buck, so shooting it wasn't legal.

Someone witnessed the shooting and called it in. Two wildlife officers stopped Richard on his way out of the park. He told them he had shot a deer and was looking for help to retrieve it. It was too dark to do anything about it at the time, but the next morning, wildlife officer Michael Johnson found the deer, downed through not quite dead. He put it out of its misery, cut off the head and showed it to Richard. Showing only two points, Richard was charged in Columbia District Court. He was convicted by a jury of his peers of illegally killing the animal and imposed a $2,000 fine.

Richard appealed his case, not on the facts of the incident, but saying that even if he did shoot the deer illegally, he wasn't the one who killed it. Officer Johnson was. The appellate court ruled that because Richard didn't raise such an issue at trial, he was too late—the big game version of "you break it you buy it."

Topics: Civics 101

Permalink | Comments (1)

Civics 101: You Don't Have the Right to Starve Yourself to Death in Jail

Today the state high court ruled 8-1 today that the few privacy rights afforded inmates do not allow them to refuse food and hydration—even if the state uses force to get them fed. Charles McNabb arrived at Airway Heights Correctional facility outside Spokane after he set fire to his estranged wife's house in 2003. He stopped eating, until DOC finally strapped him down and force fed him through a tube laced through his nostril.

McNabb sued the state Department of Corrections, saying that in force feeding him nutrients, DOC violated his right to privacy. His case was thrown out in Superior court and ended up in the appellate court where he argued that he was not trying to commit suicide, but only "let nature take its course." Again he lost with the appellate court ruling that not only did his actions look a lot like suicide, which the state has the right to prevent, but also because inmates don't have the same right to privacy enjoyed by the rest of us.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court ruling noting that while it is constitutionally acceptable to refuse nutrition as part of a hunger strike: "the State's interests in applying DOC's force-feeding policy to McNabb outweigh his right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration."

Continue reading "Civics 101: You Don't Have the Right to Starve Yourself to Death in Jail"

Topics: Civics 101

Permalink | Comments (0)

Civics 101: You Can't Be Selective About Shrink/Patient Privilege

The state high court today ruled that when a shrink counsels a couple, you can't solicit their testimony during the discovery phase of your divorce only to reinstate attorney/client privilege in the courtroom.

Spokane couple Pardner Wynn and his wife went to Jolene Earin when their marriage hit the rocks. Wynn thought Earin was unfairly biased toward his wife. The couple eventually divorced and his now-ex-wife continued therapy sessions with Earin. During the proceedings, Earin was interviewed by a child advocate about custody and weighed in on where she thought the child should go. Hoping to diminish Earin's credibility in the custody process, Wynn had her deposed, and in so doing, waived his right to doctor/patient privilege. But then Earin actually testified in court and his ex-wife got custody.

Wynn sued Earin saying she violated his confidentiality by testifying in court. All nine state Supreme Court justices agreed that in soliciting the testimony of his therapist during discovery (the months of evidence-gathering that proceeds a trial), he waived his right to expect confidentiality from her at any other point in the trial.

Topics: Civics 101

Permalink | Comments (0)