WSR 97-01-029

RULES OF COURT

STATE SUPREME COURT

[December 9, 1996]

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPT- } ORDER

ION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO }

CrR 3.6 and CrRLJ 3.6 } NO. 25700-A-593

The District and Municipal Court Judges' Association having recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments to CrR 3.6 and CrRLJ 3.6, and the Court having determined that the proposed amendments will aid in the prompt and orderly administration of justice and further determined that an emergency exists which necessitates an early adoption;

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ordered:

(a) That the amendments as attached hereto adopted.

(b) That pursuant to the emergency provisions of GR 9(i), the amendments will be published expeditiously and become effective upon publication.

dated at Olympia, Washington this 9th day of December, 1996.

Durham, C. J.

_______________________

Dolliver, J.

________________________ ________________________

Smith, J. Alexander, J.

________________________ ________________________

Guy, J. Talmadge, J.

________________________ ________________________

Johnson, J.

________________________ ________________________

At the conclusion of a hearing, upon a motion to suppress physical, oral or identification evidence the trial court shall set forth in writing: (1) the undisputed facts; (2) the disputed facts; (3) the court's findings as to the disputed facts; and (4) the court's reason for the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence sought to be suppressed.

(a) Pleadings. Motions to suppress physical, oral or identification evidence, other than motion pursuant to rule 3.5, shall be in writing supported by an affidavit or document setting forth the facts the moving party anticipates will be elicited at a hearing, and a memorandum of authorities in support of the motion. Opposing counsel may be ordered to serve and file a memorandum of authorities in opposition to the motion. The court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required based upon the moving papers. If the court determines that no evidentiary is required, the court shall enter a written order setting forth its reasons.

(b) Hearing. If an evidentiary hearing is conducted, at its conclusion the court shall enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[By an order of the Supreme Court February 15, 1996, and in accordance with GR 9(f), the following proposed changes to the Rules of Court are published for comment by any interested party. Comments should be submitted to the Clerk of the Court, P.O. Box 40929, Olympia WA 98504-0929, no later than April 30, 1996.

The cover sheet information as to purpose required by GR 9(d) is included herein solely for information purposes.

Proposed amendment to rule is CrRLJ 3.6.

Additions and deletions are indicated by underlining and lining out respectively, except where the entire rule is new.]

(a) Hearing. Upon a motion to suppress physical, oral or identification evidence, the court shall conduct a hearing. A motion to suppress shall be made and heard before the empanelment of the jury.

(b) Duty of Court To Make a Record. After the hearing, the court shall state its findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence.

(a) Pleadings; Determination Regarding Hearing. Motions to suppress physical, oral or identification evidence other than motions pursuant to rule 3.5 shall be in writing supported by an affidavit or document as provided in RCW 9A.72.085 or any law amendatory thereto, setting forth the facts the moving party anticipates will be elicited at a hearing. If there are no disputed facts, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court determines that no evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall set forth its reasons for not conducting an evidentiary hearing.

(b) Decision. The court shall state findings of fact and conclusions of law.

If the proposed amendment to CrRLJ 3.6 is adopted, defense counsel would be required to file a brief affidavit or certificate that elaborates what the motion is about. This would narrow the issues and even eliminate some motions altogether. The court can decide not to hear oral argument on motions that are clearly frivolous, and cases may be settled without the need for oral argument.

It is also being recommended that the Superior Court companion rule, CrR 3.6, be amended in a similar fashion. However, in superior court cases, the moving party will also file a memorandum of authorities in support of the motion, opposing counsel may be ordered to respond with a memorandum of authorities, and the findings/conclusions must be written.

Reviser's note: The typographical errors in the above section occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.