S-1345.2 _______________________________________________
SENATE BILL 6067
_______________________________________________
State of Washington 55th Legislature 1997 Regular Session
By Senators West, McDonald and Oke
Read first time 03/13/97. Referred to Committee on Ways & Means.
AN ACT Relating to restricting public reimbursement of criminal defendants; and amending RCW 9A.16.110.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 9A.16.110 and 1995 c 44 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
(2)(a)
When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is
found not guilty by reason of self-defense and the prosecution is conducted
by the state attorney general under RCW 43.10.232, the state of Washington through
the sundry claims process under RCW 4.92.040 shall reimburse the defendant
for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and
other expenses involved in his or her defense. ((This)) If the
prosecution is conducted by a county or municipal prosecuting attorney,
reimbursement may be made by the county or municipality if authorized by the county
or municipal legislative authority, respectively.
(b) Reimbursement under this subsection is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.
(((3)))
(c) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified
by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was
engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to
the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount
of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also
consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.
((Nothing
in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process
to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a
higher award than one granted under this section.
(4))) (d)
Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge,
the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special
verdict under (e) of this subsection (((4) [(5)] of this section)).
(((5)))
(e) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been
submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court
shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the
following form:
answer
yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self‑defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the
crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .
--- END ---