Facts:  Respondent James Barnhart was convicted of stalking in the Bothell Municipal Court, whose jurisdiction includes portions of both King County and Snohomish County.  Barnhart appealed his conviction, asserting that as the alleged stalking occurred entirely within Snohomish County, empaneling a jury that included residents of both counties violated Article I §22 of the Washington State Constitution, which requires that juries be comprised of residents of the county in which the offense is charged.  The Superior Court for King County affirmed Barnhart’s conviction, holding that the jury selection procedure was consistent with Washington Revised Code §2.36.050, which requires that juries in trials before courts of limited jurisdiction be drawn from the area served by the court, and that §2.36.050 is consistent with the intent of Article I §22.  However, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, finding that the jury selection procedure violated Article I §22.  The city of Bothell appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Did the Bothell Municipal Court violate Article I §22 by empaneling jurors from both King County and Snohomish County when the conduct underlying the charge against Barnhart occurred entirely within Snohomish County?

Conclusion:  Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the meaning of the term county for purposes of Article I §22 is its ordinary meaning, that the framers of Article I §22 did not intend for county to mean the area served by a court, and that §2.36.050 must be interpreted consistently with Article I §22.  Thus, as such material departures from jury selection requirements are presumptively prejudicial, the Court vacated Barnhart’s conviction and remanded the case for retrial.

Docket No. 84907-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63494-1)

Petitioner: City of Bothell

(Counsel: Joseph N. Beck and Paul Reginald Byrnell)

Respondent: James Barnhart

(Counsel: Mark R. Stephens)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, July 28th, 2011

Prevailing Party: James Barnhart (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst
(Majority)

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins