Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to CrR 3.4 - Presence of the Defendant (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for CrR 3.4 - Presence of the Defendant

GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments to

SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL RULES (CrR)

CrR 3.4 – PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT

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 are two proposed amendments to this rule.

Subsection (b) amendment:

The rule currently allows a corporation—but only a corporation—in a criminal case to appear by its lawyer for all purposes. RCW 9A.08.030 is the basis for corporate criminal liability, which provides that “corporation” for purposes of the statute encompasses all joint stock associations. The proposed amendment expands the rule to apply to all legal entities other than natural persons.

Subsection (c) amendment:

This amendment is intended to clarify when bench warrants can issue postsentencing. The subcommittee was concerned about the reported practice of some courts issuing bench warrants for the failure to pay legal financial obligations. The current rule does not explicitly allow for bench warrants to be issued for postsentencing matters. The current language defining when the defendant’s presence is “necessary” under (a) does not include matters that occur after the imposition of sentence. This amendment is intended to clarify that a bench warrant may be issued for postsentencing hearings for which there has been an order to appear. However, the amendment makes clear that courts shall not issue bench warrants for failure to pay legal financial obligations until there has been a hearing in which the court has found a willful failure to pay.

The Washington State Association of County Clerks (WSACC) had expressed reservations at the language of a prior draft of the rule. The WSACC wanted to make sure the amended language preserved the ability to issue bench warrants after the court finds the failure to pay is willful. The language of the last sentence of the proposed amendment is intended to address that concern (“However, no warrant shall issue for failure to pay legal financial obligations unless, after a hearing on the record, the court finds the failure to pay is willful.”) A stakeholder also expressed concern that the language of this rule might be interpreted inconsistently with new legislation. However, another stakeholder stated that judges are currently managing this well and this is not a concern. No other stakeholder feedback was received.

The proposed revisions were circulated widely to the Washington State Bar Association’s (WSBA) list of stakeholders, including representatives from the Supreme Court, the three Courts of Appeal, the Superior Court Judges Association, and the District and Municipal Court Judges Association; specialty bars (the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers, Washington Association for Justice, Northwest Justice Project, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington Appellate Lawyers Associations, International Association of Defense Counsel, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys, Public Defenders Association, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Columbia Legal, and section leaders for the WSBA’s sections); and local and minority bar associations.

D. Hearing: A hearing is not requested.

E. Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.