Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to CrR 4.4 - Severance of Offenses and Defendants (in Word Format)
• No comments were submitted.

GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments to

SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL RULES (CrR)

CrR 4.4 – SEVERANCE OF OFFENSES AND DEFENDANTS

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:

These suggested amendments are intended to clear up confusing references within the rule. Subsection (a) governs the timeliness of a motion to sever, and subsection (b) governs when offenses are severable. As currently written, the reference to “other than under subsection (a)” in subsection (b) makes little sense. Subsections (a) and (b) were intended to work together to govern when motions must be made and when they should be granted. However, the current language of the rule purports to exempt subsection (a) from subsection (b), which does not make sense. The suggested amendment reinforces that motions to sever must be timely “pursuant” to subsection (a).

There is a similar confusing reference in subsection (c)(2). Subsection (c) governs severance of defendants. The current language directs the court to grant a severance of a defendant “other than under subsection (i).” However, the reference to subsection (i) is confusing since there are two subsections (i) in the rule and neither makes sense as the reference. The suggested amendment makes clear that the reference to (i) in (c)(2) should be changed to (c)(1). This suggested amendment clarifies that defense motions to sever a defendant on the basis of out-of-court statements of a co-defendant are governed by (c)(1) and all other defense motions to sever a defendant are governed by (c)(2).

The only stakeholder feedback the committee received concerned language in a prior version of this proposed amendment. The committee ultimately chose to eliminate the language that drew the concern. No stakeholders opposed the substance of the change, or the need for the change.

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.