Stout v. Felix

Citation493 P.3d 1170
Decision Date26 August 2021
Docket NumberNo. 98613-4,98613-4
CourtWashington Supreme Court
Parties In re Citizen Complaint by Thomas W. STOUT, Petitioner v. Geene D. FELIX, Respondent.

Gary Alan Preble, Attorney at Law, 2120 State Ave. Ne, Olympia, WA, 98506-6515, for Petitioner.

James M. Richardson III, Wash. State Attorney General Office, Po Box 40124, Olympia, WA, 98504-0124, Karl David Smith, Wash. State Attorney General, Office Po Box 40100, Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, for Respondent.

Adam Phillip Karp, Animal Law Offices of Adam P. Karp, 114 W. Magnolia St. Ste. 400-104, Bellingham, WA, 98225-4380, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Animal Law Offices of Adam Karp.

Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc. of Prosecuting Attys., 206 10th Ave. Se, Olympia, WA, 98501-1311, for Counsel for Other Parties.

MONTOYA-LEWIS, J.

¶1 This case asks us to decide whether a citizen's affidavit is sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings under the citizen complaint rule, CrRLJ 2.1(c). Under the citizen complaint rule, "[a]ny person" may initiate criminal proceedings. CrRLJ 2.1(c). To begin the process, the person must appear before a judge to present their allegations. They may also file an affidavit, and the judge may provide the potential defendant, the prosecuting attorney, and other potential witnesses an opportunity to be heard. Then, the judge considers the evidence, makes a probable cause determination, and weighs a number of factors before authorizing the citizen to sign and file the criminal complaint.

¶2 We hold that under CrRLJ 2.1, criminal proceedings are initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint, and an affidavit under CrRLJ 2.1(c) is only part of the citizen's request for the court's approval to file the complaint. Here, the criminal complaint was not filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the citizen complaint as untimely.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 Geene Felix is a Department of Social and Health Services1 social worker who was involved in child welfare matters regarding Thomas Stout's two children. On October 4, 2016, Felix signed two dependency petitions under penalty of perjury, alleging that Stout's children were dependent. Stout disputed Felix's factual account in the dependency petitions. He alleged that Felix committed the crime of false swearing when she made certain statements in the petitions. The crime of false swearing is a gross misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. RCW 9A.72.040(2) ; RCW 9A.04.080(1)(j).

¶4 On October 3, 2018—one day short of two years after Felix filed the dependency petitions—Stout filed an affidavit of complaining witness in Mason County District Court, seeking to institute a citizen complaint against Felix. The court issued a summons notice to Felix, notified Mason County Prosecutor Michael Dorcy, and set a probable cause hearing for two weeks later.

¶5 The probable cause hearing began on October 19, 2018. The court noted that the statute of limitations for the crime of false swearing was two years and that the limitations period had passed. The court requested briefing from the parties regarding the timeliness of the citizen complaint as well as whether there was probable cause to support the complaint. It continued the matter to December 14, 2018.

¶6 At the December hearing, the court first considered the timeliness issue. Felix argued that a criminal action can be commenced only by the filing of an indictment or complaint, which must be done within the statute of limitations. Stout argued that an affidavit in support of a citizen complaint was an exception to the complaint requirement, the affidavit was sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings, and he timely filed it within the statute of limitations. Dorcy did not directly address the statute of limitations issue, but he challenged the merits of Stout's citizen complaint and the constitutionality of the citizen complaint rule. The court agreed with Felix and ruled that "[a] criminal action is commenced by filing a complaint." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3. Therefore, because Stout did not file a criminal complaint within the two-year statute of limitations, the court dismissed his citizen complaint as untimely. The court did not reach the merits of the case.

¶7 Stout moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied his motion. He appealed to the Mason County Superior Court, which affirmed the district court's ruling.2 He then sought review in the Court of Appeals, and the commissioner denied discretionary review. The Court of Appeals also denied his request to modify the commissioner's ruling. The Supreme Court commissioner granted discretionary review.

II. ANALYSIS

¶8 Interpretation of a court rule is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. McEnroe , 174 Wash.2d 795, 800, 279 P.3d 861 (2012). We apply the principles of statutory construction, beginning with the plain meaning of the rule. Id. ; Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC , 146 Wash.2d 1, 9-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). The plain language of the rule is not read in isolation but "in context, considering related provisions, and in light of the statutory or rule-making scheme as a whole." State v. Stump , 185 Wash.2d 454, 460, 374 P.3d 89 (2016) (citing State v. Conover , 183 Wash.2d 706, 711, 355 P.3d 1093 (2015) ).

¶9 The parties dispute whether a citizen's affidavit initiates criminal proceedings under the citizen complaint rule. The parties also dispute the constitutionality of the citizen complaint rule. We will not reach a constitutional issue "unless absolutely necessary to the determination of the case." State v. Hall , 95 Wash.2d 536, 539, 627 P.2d 101 (1981). Therefore, we first address the statute of limitations issue.

¶10 In district court, criminal proceedings are governed by the Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. CrRLJ 1.1. There are three ways to initiate criminal proceedings in district court; two are familiar and one—the citizen complaint rule—has been used seemingly rarely.

¶11 First, CrRLJ 2.1(a)(1) states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this rule, all criminal proceedings shall be initiated by a complaint." The rule requires that the complaint contain specific information, including the defendant's identifying information, a statement of facts, and the particular law the defendant is alleged to have violated; the complaint also must be signed by the appropriate prosecuting authority. CrRLJ 2.1(a)(2), (3). If the complaint fails to cite to the correct law, it may be dismissed if it prejudiced the defendant. CrRLJ 2.1(a)(2) ("Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the complaint or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to his or her prejudice."). The original complaint must be filed with the clerk of the court. CrRLJ 2.1(d)(1). Once the complaint is filed, the court may direct the clerk to issue an arrest warrant or a summons to be served on the defendant. See generally CrRLJ 2.2.

¶12 Second, criminal proceedings can be initiated by a peace officer serving a citation and notice on the defendant. CrRLJ 2.1(b) (the "peace officer exception"). This is an exception to the complaint requirement, and the citation and notice is treated the same as a criminal complaint. CrRLJ 2.1(b)(5) ("[T]he citation and notice shall be deemed a lawful complaint for the purpose of initiating prosecution of the offense charged therein."). The peace officer exception also requires that the citation be on a specific form and that the citation and notice contains specific information, including the defendant's identifying information, the charged offense, and when the defendant must appear in court. CrRLJ 2.1(b)(1), (3). Similar to the requirements for a complaint, the citation and notice must also be signed by the citing officer and the original must also be filed with the clerk of the court. CrRLJ 2.1(b)(5), (d)(1).

¶13 Finally, CrRLJ 2.1(c) provides a third way to begin a criminal case—the citizen complaint rule. Under this rule, a citizen may appear in district court and seek to initiate criminal proceedings:

Any person wishing to institute a criminal action alleging a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor shall appear before a judge empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the State, other than a judge pro tem. The judge may require the appearance to be made on the record, and under oath. The judge may consider any allegations on the basis of an affidavit sworn to before the judge. The court may also grant an opportunity at said hearing for evidence to be given by the county prosecuting attorney or deputy, the potential defendant or attorney of record, law enforcement or other potential witnesses. The court may also require the presence of other potential witnesses.

CrRLJ 2.1(c). Based on the evidence presented, the district court makes a probable cause determination. Id. The rule also includes a list of seven factors the court may consider in addition to probable cause, as well as a sample affidavit of complaining witness form. Id. After the court finds probable cause and weighs the factors, then "the judge may authorize the citizen to sign and file a complaint in the form prescribed in CrRLJ 2.1(a)." Id.

¶14 Unlike the peace officer exception, the citizen complaint rule does not expressly state whether a citizen's affidavit is an exception to the complaint requirement; but the plain meaning of the citizen complaint rule and the context of the entire rule CrRLJ 2.1 support the conclusion that it is not. McEnroe , 174 Wash.2d at 800, 279 P.3d 861 ; Stump , 185 Wash.2d at 460, 374 P.3d 89. The form and function of an affidavit is different from a complaint or citation and notice. In contrast with the requirements for a complaint or citation and notice, a citizen's affidavit is not required to take any particular form or contain any specific information. Compare CrRLJ 2.1(a)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Potter v. City of Lacey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 18, 2022
    ...1685 (1992). And the Washington Supreme Court employs its own version of constitutional avoidance. See Stout v. Felix , 198 Wash.2d 180, 493 P.3d 1170, 1172 (2021) ("We will not reach a constitutional issue unless absolutely necessary to the determination of the case." (citation and interna......
  • In re N.G.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2022
    ...RAP 2.3(b)(2) and RAP 13.5(b)(2). Interpretation of a court rule is a question of law we review de novo. In re Citizen Complaint by Stout , 198 Wash.2d 180, 184, 493 P.3d 1170 (2021). RAP 2.3(b) provides criteria for when the Court of Appeals may grant discretionary review of a trial court ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT