Opinion ID: 2599735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kirkpatrick's motion to strike State's RAP 2.5 argument is denied

Text: ¶ 9 Just prior to oral argument before this court, Kirkpatrick moved to strike a portion of the State's supplemental brief which asked this court to decline to reach the merits of Kirkpatrick's article I, section 7 claim in accordance with RAP 2.5(a). The State did not address the applicability of RAP 2.5(a) in an answer to Kirkpatrick's petition for review or in its brief submitted to the Court of Appeals. However, because Kirkpatrick himself raised the same issue in his petition here, [9] it was appropriate for the State to address this issue in its supplemental brief. Therefore, Kirkpatrick's motion to strike is denied. [10]