Court Opinion

ID: 9547073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:41:24.169054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:16.859276
License: Public Domain

*726Munson, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent from that portion of the opinion which approves filing of an affidavit of prejudice against a court commissioner. There is neither a constitutional provision nor a statutory right to file an affidavit of prejudice against a court commissioner. In re McGee, 36 Wn. App. 660, 679 P.2d 933, review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1018 (1984).
If the Legislature had intended to provide for the automatic disqualification of court commissioners by RCW 4.12.050, it could have done so. Instead, the right to a revision hearing before a superior court judge was provided. RCW 2.24.050. To hold an affidavit of prejudice pursuant to RCW 4.12.050 applicable to a court commissioner is inappropriate judicial legislation.
However, RCW 4.12.040 provides the right to seek recu-sal of a judge. RCW 13.04.021 states in part: "[Cjourt commissioners shall have the power, authority, and jurisdiction, concurrent with a juvenile court judge, to hear all cases under this chapter ..." Thus, while not providing the applicability of an affidavit of prejudice, I believe that by giving the commissioner concurrent jurisdiction with a juvenile court judge, a party has a right to seek recusal of a commissioner. The defendant should state a specific ground upon which he alleges bias or prejudice, an opportunity to be heard should be afforded, a record of the hearing made as well as a ruling of the commissioner. Thus, there would be a record for review. Here, the contention seems to be that the Commissioner had heard other matters involving Mr. Espinoza. That may or not have provided grounds for recusal. See Annot., Disqualification of Judge for Having Decided Different Case Against Litigant, 21 A.L.R.3d 1369 (1968). This procedure not having been followed, believing *727an affidavit of prejudice does not lie against a commissioner, and concurring in the balance of the opinion, I would affirm the conviction.
Review granted by Supreme Court October 4,1988.