Opinion ID: 2625347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation of RCW 4.12.050

Text: Tarabochia claims that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's rejection of his affidavit of prejudice. Under RCW 4.12.040, every party has the right to a change of judge as long as the requirements of RCW 4.12.050 are satisfied. Marine Power & Equip. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Co., 102 Wash.2d 457, 459, 687 P.2d 202 (1984). RCW 4.12.050 provides in pertinent part: Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding in a superior court, may establish such prejudice by motion, supported by affidavit that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced against such party or attorney, so that such party or attorney cannot, or believes that he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge: PROVIDED, That such motion and affidavit is filed and called to the attention of the judge before he shall have made any ruling whatsoever in the case, ... and before the judge presiding has made any order or ruling involving discretion ... and in any event, in counties where there is but one resident judge, such motion and affidavit shall be filed not later than the day on which the case is called to be set for trial [.] (Emphasis added.) [9] The italicized portion of RCW 4.12.050 cited above is known as the one-judge county rule. The purpose of the one-judge county rule is to assure the trial court sufficient time to arrange for a visiting judge while avoiding speedy-trial problems. State v. Cockrell, 102 Wash.2d 561, 566, 689 P.2d 32 (1984); State v. Norman, 24 Wash.App. 811, 813, 603 P.2d 1280 (1979). Underlying this requirement of filing an affidavit of prejudice on or before the date the case is called to be set for trial is the fact that in a one-judge county the defendant is aware of the judge who will hear his casethe only judge in the county. State v. Waters, 93 Wash.App. 969, 974-75, 971 P.2d 538 (1999). Although it is undisputed that Wahkiakum County is a one-judge county and the statute clearly mandates a timeliness requirement in one-judge counties, Tarabochia argues that the statute should be construed liberally and cites Norman for support. The Court of Appeals found that Norman is inapplicable to Tarabochia's case because it is factually distinct. In Norman, the issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the trial judge erred in refusing to honor an affidavit of prejudice that was filed in a one-judge county after the date the case was called to be set for trial. The defendant's trial was called for setting the same day he was arraigned and the same day that counsel was appointed for him. Norman, 24 Wash.App. at 812, 603 P.2d 1280. The defendant was arraigned by a court commissioner and mistakenly assumed that the commissioner would also preside over his trial. Id. Three weeks later, after discovering his trial would be presided over by the same judge whom he had appeared before in another matter, the defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice. Id. at 812-13, 603 P.2d 1280. The defendant's affidavit was filed two weeks before his trial was to begin. Id. The trial court rejected the affidavit of prejudice as untimely, but the Norman court reversed finding that the purpose of the timeliness requirement in a one-judge county is to assure the court sufficient time to arrange for a visiting judge to preside over a defendant's trial. Id. at 813, 603 P.2d 1280. That purpose had been served. The Norman court opined that a careful reading of RCW 4.12.050 suggests that the legislature did not foresee that a defendant's arraignment and trial setting in a criminal case would occur at the same hearing: The statute states that the defendant shall file an affidavit of prejudice before [the judge has] made any ruling whatsoever in the case ...[.] But the statute further provides that the arraignment of the accused... shall not be construed as a ruling ... within the meaning of this proviso...[.] Hence, we conclude that the legislature believed that some time would elapse between the arraignment and the trial setting. 24 Wash.App. at 813, 603 P.2d 1280. [10] Following this interpretation, the Norman court held that the defendant should have been given time to consult with his attorney and therefore be given leeway to file his affidavit of prejudice after the date the case was called to be set for trial. Arguably, the Norman opinion provides support for the argument that RCW 4.12.050 is not to be applied literally in all instances. Although the defendant in Norman filed his affidavit of prejudice outside the time limit of the trial setting date, the Norman court found that the filing was timely because there was ample time to allow the court to arrange for a visiting judge and the speedy trial right of the defendant had been waived. Id. at 814, 603 P.2d 1280. Norman excuses strict compliance with the statutory provisions if there is enough time to arrange for a new trial judge and the speedy trial rule is not compromised. In such circumstances, according to Norman, an affidavit of prejudice in a one-judge county will be considered timely filed so long as there has been no discretionary ruling. However, the Norman interpretation of RCW 4.12.050 is at odds with the plain language of the statute. We find that RCW 4.12.050 is unambiguous and clear on its face. The rule is mandatory and does not allow for exceptions. This is evidenced by the language, in any event. See RCW 4.12.050. It is unequivocal that in one-judge counties, an affidavit of prejudice must be filed on or before the date the case is called to be set for trial. To create exceptions blurs the distinction between multijudge counties and one-judge counties that RCW 4.12.050 recognizes. The Norman opinion was cited in this court's decision in Cockrell. In Cockrell, the defendants were arraigned in Stevens County, which is a two-judge county. 102 Wash.2d at 563, 689 P.2d 32. At their omnibus hearing, one of the judges recused himself because he knew the defendants personally. Id. However, the judge granted the defendants' motion for continuance of the trial setting date and accepted defendants' speedy trial waiver. Id. at 563-64, 689 P.2d 32. Several weeks after the defendants' trial date had been set, their daughter appeared in another matter before the judge who was scheduled to hear the defendants' case. Id. at 564, 689 P.2d 32. One month after that testimony, the defendants filed an affidavit of prejudice fearing the judge would be biased because of his prior contact with their daughter. Id. The trial court rejected the defendants' affidavit ruling it was untimely since, by virtue of the earlier recusal, the court had become a de facto one-judge county, and thus the requirement of RCW 4.12.050 applied. This court reversed and, citing to Norman, found that the purpose of the one-judge county rule is to avoid problems that may arise because of the speedy trial rule. Id. at 565-66, 689 P.2d 32. Because the Cockrell defendants had waived their speedy trial rights and had permitted enough time to secure an alternate judge, this court found that application of the one-judge county rule was inappropriate and the trial court was required by RCW 4.12.040 to grant their affidavit of prejudice. Id. at 566-67, 689 P.2d 32 (declining the State's invitation to create a de facto one-judge county rule on the facts of this case). This court properly treated defendants' affidavit as being filed in a multijudge county rather than imposing the one-judge county rule. Since Stevens County is a multijudge county, defendants' affidavit of prejudice was timely since it was filed before a discretionary ruling was made. Thus, we find that Cockrell does not necessarily render Norman controlling on these facts. However, even if we were to find Norman persuasive authority, the Court of Appeals properly distinguished the present case from Norman finding that the cases were factually distinct. Unlike the defendant in Norman, who mistakenly believed the commissioner who conducted his arraignment would be the one to preside over his trial, Tarabochia was put on notice as to who would preside over his trial since Judge Penoyer conducted his arraignment. Further, unlike Norman, Tarabochia was able to consult with his attorney for weeks before his arraignment date. [11] The Norman court found that the defendant's affidavit was timely because at the date of trial setting, the defendant had not had time to consult with his attorney. Norman, 24 Wash.App. at 812-13, 603 P.2d 1280. This was not the case here. Therefore, it is clear to us that Tarabochia was aware of who would be the judge in his case. As the Court of Appeals observed, after the trial date was set Tarabochia had the rest of the day to file the affidavit, which he failed to do. RCW 4.12.050 is unambiguous. In one-judge counties, an affidavit of prejudice will be considered timely only if it is filed on or before the date the case is called to be set for trial. Because Tarabochia failed to timely file his affidavit of prejudice, the trial court did not err by rejecting his affidavit on the grounds that it was untimely.