WSR 20-01-043

RULES OF COURT

STATE SUPREME COURT

[December 4, 2019]

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO CrR 8.2—MOTIONS, CrRLJ 8.2—MOTIONS

)

ORDER

NO. 25700-A-1284

The Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, having recommended the suggested amendments to CrR 8.2—Motions, CrRLJ 8.2—Motions, and the Court having approved the suggested amendments for publication;

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ordered:

(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(g), the suggested amendments as shown below are to be published for comment in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Administrative Office of the Court's websites in January 2020.

(b) The purpose statement as required by GR 9(e), is published solely for the information of the Bench, Bar and other interested parties.

(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet E-Mail by no later than April 30, 2020. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or supreme@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.

dated at Olympia, Washington this 4th day of December, 2019.

	For the Court

	Fairhurst, C.J.
	chief justice

GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments

SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL RULES (CrR)

Rule 8.2 - MOTIONS

A.Name of Proponent:

William D. Pickett, President, Washington State Bar Association

B. Spokesperson:

Jefferson Coulter

Chair of Court Rules and Procedures Committee

NW Justice Project

1702 W. Broadway Ave.

Spokane, WA 99201 (Phone: 509-324-9128)

Staff Liaison/Contact:

Nicole Gustine, Assistant General Counsel

Washington State Bar Association (WSBA)

1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 206-727-8237)

C. Purpose:

There is currently a conflict in the case law as to whether the criminal rules allow a motion for reconsideration. State v. Batsell, 198 Wn.App. 1066, unpublished (issued May 2, 2017), illustrates that there is some confusion as to whether a motion for reconsideration is allowed under the criminal rules. The Batsellcourt noted that State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wn.2d 738, 744, 757 P.2d 925 (1988), noted that civil rules are instructive as to matters of procedure on which the criminal rules are silent. However, State v. Keller, 32 Wn.App. 135, 647 P.2d 35 (1982), held that CR 59 did not apply in criminal cases. In contrast, as the Batsell court noted, "at least two reported decisions in criminal appeals have involved motions for reconsideration without questioning CR 59's application in criminal cases." (citing State v. Englund, 186 Wn.App. 444, 459, 345 P.3d 859, review denied, 183 Wn.2d 1011, 352 P.3d 188 (2015); State v. Chaussee, 77 Wn.App. 803, 806-07, 895 P.2d 414 (1995)).

This confusion results in inconsistency across courts. It also presents a problem when a party in a criminal case wishes to move for discretionary review, as the time for filing a notice of discretionary review runs from the entry of an order deciding a timely motion for reconsideration pursuant to RAP 5.2(b).

The district court criminal rules do not have an express provision for motions for reconsideration. To be consistent with the superior court rule it is also recommended that District Court Criminal Rule 8.2 also be amended.

D. Hearing: A hearing is not recommended.

E. Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.

F. Supporting Material: Suggested rule amendments.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT