|
On February 2,
2006, the Washington Supreme Court entered an order adopting the
following amendment to IRLJ 6.7. The new rule will become
effective upon publication in the advance sheets.
INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED
JURISDICTION
IRLJ 6.7
IDENTITY CHALLENGES AND RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Relief from Judgment. A motion to waive
or suspend a fine, or to convert a penalty to community service,
or to vacate a judgment is governed by CRLJ 60(b).
Identity Challenge.
Right Granted. In addition to the rights
granted defendants pursuant to rule 6.7(a), a defendant may move
to vacate a judgment that was entered after a failure to respond
to a notice of infraction on the basis that he or she was
mistakenly identified as the person who allegedly committed the
infraction.
Identity Affidavit. A defendant moving to
vacate a judgment for mistaken identification shall file an
affidavit or certification under RCW 9A.72.085 with the court in
which the infraction was found committed and with the office of
the prosecuting authority assigned to the court stating that he or
she could not be the person identified by the citing officer as
having committed the infraction, citing a factual basis for the
assertion and stating that he or she was not served with the
notice of infraction.
Adjudication Pending Hearing. T he court
may, at its discretion, set aside the default judgment pending the
hearing.
Scheduling of Hearings. An identification
hearing shall be scheduled for not less than 14 days and not more
than 120 days from the date an identity affidavit is filed unless
otherwise agreed by the defendant. The court shall send the
defendant written notice of the time, place, and date of the
hearing within 28 days of the receipt of the request for a
hearing.
Hearing Procedure. The court may require
the presence of the defendant at the scheduled hearing. At the
hearing, identification may be established by methods other than
direct identification in court.
Disposition. If the court determines that
the named defendant was the person identified by the citing
officer as the person who committed the infraction or was served
with the notice of infraction, the infraction shall remain
committed or be re-adjudicated as committed.
In adopting the above rule, the Court rejected
all of the suggested changes proposed by WAPA.
|
