Court Opinion

ID: 9565217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:16:57.491503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:28.586591
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the result, but believe it is unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue. See In re Sauve, 103 Wn.2d 322, 325, 692 P.2d 818 (1985) (citing Tommy P. v. Board of Cy. Comm'rs, 97 Wn.2d 385, 391, 645 P.2d 697 (1982)). The local district court rule provides as an ultimate sanction the striking of the jury demand. On these facts, that giant leap was an abuse of discretion. The defense attorney appeared and was prepared to confer on any subject pertaining to the case. No satisfactory reason is established for requiring the defendant's personal presence. His absence was explained—he did not want to lose a day of work and remuneration by attending.
Notwithstanding, there is no justification given for imposing this ultimate sanction. Without a rational justification, I find an abuse of discretion. The result remains the same—remand for a jury trial.