State v. Hecht
173 Wash. 2d 92
Wash.2011Background
- Hecht, a former Pierce County Superior Court judge, was convicted of felony harassment and patronizing a prostitute.
- Hecht sought an order of indigency for appellate costs; the superior court initially denied, and the Court of Appeals denied discretionary review.
- On remand, Hecht alleged declining health, unpaid debts, spousal income, and that a bank denied him credit, with defense costs estimated between $17,500 and $27,500.
- The superior court again denied indigency status, concluding Hecht had adequate means to pay, prompting further appellate review.
- The Washington Supreme Court held RAP 15.2 and RCW 10.101.010 can be harmonized and that Hecht’s receipt of food stamps makes him presumptively indigent, requiring remand for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does food stamp receipt render Hecht indigent? | Hecht is indigent under RCW 10.101.010(1)(a). | Indigency depends on overall financial ability; receipt of food stamps alone may not determine indigency. | Yes; Hecht presumptively indigent due to public assistance. |
| How do RAP 15.2 and RCW 10.101.010 interact for indigency determinations? | RCW 10.101.010 supports indigency when any statutory criterion is met. | RAP 15.2 operates independently and must be applied in a way compatible with the statute. | They can be harmonized; court must grant indigency if Hecht meets either statutory definition. |
| Must indigency be granted when a party is indigent and able to contribute? | If able to contribute, Hecht may still receive indigency with designated expenses to be paid by the public fisc. | If there are adequate means to pay all expenses, indigency should be denied. | Indigent and able to contribute triggers designation of expenses borne by public funds; eligibility not negated by possible contribution. |
| Should the case be remanded for reconsideration under these standards? | Record shows Hecht receives food stamps; remand is appropriate to apply the statutory framework. | Remand unnecessary if indigency is not established by the current record. | Remand to reconsider indigency in light of the opinion. |
| Is Hecht currently within other potential definitions of indigency under RCW 10.101.010(1)(c)-(d)? | Potentially applicable; should be considered on remand. | Not decided at this time. | Remand may consider other definitions if raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Caven, 136 Wash.2d 800 (1998) (disjunctive criteria in RCW 10.101.010 permit indigency if any criterion is met)
- In re Det. of C.M., 148 Wash.App. 111 (2009) (harmonizing RAP 15.2 with statutory indigency definitions)