Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to RALJ 2.2 - What May Be Appealed (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for RALJ 2.2 - What May Be Appealed

Purpose: The Rules of Appellate Procedure state, “The appellate court may refuse to review any claim of error which was not raised in the trial court.” RAP 2.5(a). Formally codifying this rule for appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction would aid pro se litigants in understanding the scope of appealable issues. As the Court stated in State v. Naillieux, 158 Wn. App. 630, 638, 241 P.3d 1280 (2010):

Our function is to review the validity of claimed errors by a trial judge who presided over a trial. That function assumes that counsel preserve the error by objecting to something the trial judge did or did not do. We do not, and should not, be in the business of retrying these cases. It is a wasteful use of judicial resources. Id. at 344, 835 P.2d 251; State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 146, 234 P.3d 195 (2010); State v. Labanowski, 117 Wn.2d 405, 420, 816 P.2d 26 (1991). And it encourages skilled counsel to save claims of constitutional error for appeal so a defendant can get a new trial and second chance at a not guilty verdict if the first trial does not end in his favor. Lynn, 67 Wash.App. at 343, 835 P.2d 251.

Therefore, adding the exact language from RAP 2.5(a) to RALJ 2.2 would be consistent with existing case law.