Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealtrialstatute of limitationsbench trial
statuteappealtrialstatute of limitationsbench trial

Related Cases

State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149
View Case »
In re Marriage of Kile and Kendall, 186 Wash.App. 864, 347 P.3d 894
View Case »
Walker v. Bangs, 92 Wash.2d 854, 601 P.2d 1279
View Case »
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194
View Case »
Pinkham v. Burgess, 933 F.2d 1066, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1223
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Kennedy, 200 Wash.2d 1, 513 P.3d 769

Facts

In June 2004, Andrew Kennedy, then 19, was the primary caregiver for his cousin's 11-month-old daughter, K.S. During her care, he physically abused her, leading to her death from a head injury. Following a bench trial in 2007, he was convicted of homicide by abuse and sentenced to 380 months in confinement. After his conviction became final in 2009, he filed a PRP in 2019, claiming newly discovered evidence regarding adolescent brain development that he argued would have affected his sentencing.

In June 2004, Andrew Kennedy, then 19, was the primary caregiver for his cousin's 11-month-old daughter, K.S. During her care, he physically abused her, leading to her death from a head injury. Following a bench trial in 2007, he was convicted of homicide by abuse and sentenced to 380 months in confinement. After his conviction became final in 2009, he filed a PRP in 2019, claiming newly discovered evidence regarding adolescent brain development that he argued would have affected his sentencing.

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Kennedy's personal restraint petition as time-barred, and did he present newly discovered evidence that would exempt him from the one-year statute of limitations?

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Kennedy's personal restraint petition as time-barred, and did he present newly discovered evidence that would exempt him from the one-year statute of limitations?

Rule

A personal restraint petition is exempt from the one-year time bar if it presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence and would probably change the result of the sentencing.

A personal restraint petition is exempt from the one-year time bar if it presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence and would probably change the result of the sentencing.

Analysis

The court found that Kennedy's proffered evidence, which included a declaration from Dr. Laurence Steinberg on adolescent brain development, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. The court noted that the scientific understanding of youth and its implications for culpability were available at the time of Kennedy's sentencing in 2007. Therefore, Kennedy failed to meet the requirements for the exemption from the one-year time bar.

The court found that Kennedy's proffered evidence, which included a declaration from Dr. Laurence Steinberg on adolescent brain development, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. The court noted that the scientific understanding of youth and its implications for culpability were available at the time of Kennedy's sentencing in 2007. Therefore, Kennedy failed to meet the requirements for the exemption from the one-year time bar.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Kennedy's PRP as time-barred, concluding that he did not present newly discovered evidence that would exempt him from the one-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Kennedy's PRP as time-barred, concluding that he did not present newly discovered evidence that would exempt him from the one-year statute of limitations.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the dismissal of Kennedy's PRP, finding that he did not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence.

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the dismissal of Kennedy's PRP, finding that he did not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence.

You must be