Court Opinion

ID: 9632976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:30:05.716964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:26.156090
License: Public Domain

Andersen, C.J.
(dissenting) — The majority changes existing law and judicially amends the Superior Court Criminal Rules, and in the process provides an opportunity for an untold number of criminal defendants to belatedly challenge their convictions.
Until today, there was no requirement that the decision to be tried by a jury of less than 12 be in writing or be expressed personally by the defendant. It had always been considered that "[s]uch an election is not a waiver of a jury trial.” State v. Allman, 19 Wn. App. 169, 173, 573 P.2d 1329 (1977), review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1009 (1978). CrR 6.1(c) (where a juror is unable to continue, a defendant may elect to continue with the remaining jurors); CrR 6.1(a) (it is only in cases that are not tried by a jury that a written waiver is required).
If the majority proposes to change rather than interpret the criminal rules pertaining to trial by a jury of less than *73212 persons, it should do so through an amendment of the rules and not by judicial fiat.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue and hold that a written or express waiver on the part of a defendant is not required in order for trial to proceed where defense counsel, on behalf of and in the presence of defendant, elects to continue with the remaining jurors.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
Brachtenbach and Durham, JJ., concur with Andersen, C.J.