Court Opinion

ID: 9633067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:32:52.683804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:28.638178
License: Public Domain

*524Utter, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I cannot agree with the dissent that the conduct of the trial judge rose to the level of the court’s actions in State v. Levy, 8 Wn.2d 630, 113 P.2d 306 (1941). I, therefore, agree with the majority’s disposition of that portion of the case. I do, however, agree with the dissent that the refusal by counsel to brief the issue of whether the victim’s juvenile criminal history was admissible for impeachment and counsel’s failure to provide briefing on the question of whether they could explore possible felony theft charges regarding the State’s key witness were grounds for reversal of the conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel’s misconduct during trial and failure to properly represent his client raise serious questions regarding his continuing fitness to practice law.
Guy and Johnson, JJ., concur with Utter, J.