WSR 98-13-021

RULES OF COURT

STATE SUPREME COURT

[June 4, 1998]

The District and Municipal Court Judges' Association having recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments to CRLJ 73(b); CrRLJ 6.13(d) and IRLJ 2.6 (b)(1), and the Court having considered the amendments, and having determined that the proposed amendments will aid in the prompt and orderly administration of justice;

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED:

(a) That the amendments as attached hereto are adopted.

(b) That the amendments will be published in the Washington Reports and will become effective September 1, 1998.

DATED at Olympia, Washington this 4th day of June, 1998.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CIVIL RULES FOR

COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

CRLJ 73(b)

(b) Filing Notice of Appeal Jurisdictional -- Service.

(1) When an appeal is permitted by law from a court of limited jurisdiction to a superior court such appeal shall be taken by A party appealing a judgment or decision subject to this rule must fileing in the court of limited jurisdiction a notice of appeal within 30 days after the judgment is rendered or decision made. Filing the notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional requirement for an appeal.

(2) The statutory filing fee for superior court must be paid to the clerk of the limited jurisdiction court at the time the notice of appeal is filed, unless the party is excused from paying a filing fee by statute or by the constitution.

(3) The clerk of the court of limited jurisdiction shall immediately upon filing of a notice of appeal and payment of the filing fee, if required, file a copy of the notice with the superior court.

(4) A party filing a notice of appeal shall also, within the same 30 days, serve a copy of the notice of appeal on all other parties or their lawyers and file an acknowledgment or affidavit of service in the court of limited jurisdiction.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CRIMINAL RULES FOR

COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

CrRLJ 6.13(d)

(d) Speed Measuring Device: Design and Construction Certification.

(1) Admission of Certificate. In the absence of proof of a request to produce an electronic speed measuring device (SMD) expert made served on the prosecuting authority and filed with the clerk of the court at least 7 30 days prior to trial or such lesser time as the court deems proper, a certificate substantially in the following form is admissible in lieu of an expert witness in any court proceeding in which the design and construction of an electronic speed measuring device (SMD) is an issue:

certification concerning design and construction

of electronic speed measuring devices

I, ____________________, do certify under penalty of perjury as follows:

I am employed with as a ________________________________. I have been employed in such a capacity for years and hold the rank of _________________. Part of my duties include supervising the purchase, maintenance, and repair of all electronic speed measuring devices (SMDs) used by my agency.

This agency currently uses the following SMDs:

(List all SMDs used and their manufacturers.)

I have the following qualifications with respect to the above stated SMDs:

(List all degrees held and any special schooling regarding the SMDs listed above.)

Our agency maintains manuals for all of the above stated SMDs. I am personally familiar with those manuals and how each of the SMDs are designed and operated. All initial testing of the SMDs was performed under my direction. The units were evaluated to meet or exceed existing performance standards. Our agency maintains a testing and certification program. This program requires:

(State the program in detail.)

Based upon my education, training, and experience and my knowledge of the SMDs listed above, it is my opinion that each of these pieces of equipment is so designed and constructed as to accurately employ the Doppler effect in such a manner that it will give accurate measurements of the speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained operator.

_________________________________

Signature

Dated: _________________________

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO INFRACTION RULES FOR

COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

IRLJ 2.6(b)

(b) Mitigation Hearings.

(1) Upon receipt of a response submitted pursuant to rule 2.4 (b)(3) the court shall schedule a hearing to determine whether there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the infraction. The hearing shall be scheduled for not less than 14 days from the date the written notice of hearing is sent by the court, nor more than 90 120 days from the date of the notice of infraction or the date a default judgment is set aside, unless otherwise agreed by the defendant in writing.

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

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office