ORD 2002-46 SELF-DEFENSE REIMBURSEMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 2002 - 46
- -
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bainbridge Island,
Washington, relating to reimbursement of defense costs for
criminal defendants who successfully claim self-defense,
and amending section 9.01.030 of the Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.01.030 of the Bainbridge Island Municipa~ Code is
amended as follows:
9.01.838 Deleases.
The following statutes of the state of Washington are adopted by
reference:
RCW
9A.12.010 Insanity.
9A.16.010 Defmition.
9A.16.020 Use of Force - When lawful.
9 A.16.060 Duress.
9A.16.070 Entrapment.
9A.16.080 Action for being detained on mercantile establishment
of premised for investigation - "Reasonable grounds" as defense.
9A.16.090 Intoxication.
9A.16.100 Use of force on children.
I
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and
after its passage, approval and publication as required by law.
P ASS.ED by the City Council this 20th day of November , 2002.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 26th day of November , 2002.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
94700II041248093.01ISBFHOl LDOC (1116102) -1-
Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Russell D. aauge September 27, 2002 Please reply to: Adult Criminal & Administrative Divisions
Prosecuting Attorney
The Honorable Donna Jean Broce The Honorable Darlene Kordonowy
Mayor ofPoulsbo Mayor of Bainbridge Island
P.O. Box 98 280 Madison A venue North
Carol I. Maves Poulsbo, W A 98370 Bainbridge Island, W A 98110
Office Administrator
Re: City Reimbursement of Defense Costs in Self Defense Cases
Christian C. Casad Modifications to the Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island Municipal Codes
Case Manaaement
Division Chief Dear Mayors Bruce and Kordonowy:
Michael B. lavale I am the Chief Deputy Prosecutor responsible for the Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island Municipal Court
Trial prosecution contracts. A recent Poulsbo case gives rise to a matter deserving of your attention
Division Chief involving the expenditure of Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island taxpayer dollars.
Jeffrey J. Jab.s State law provides that a court may order reimbursement of defense costs to criminal defendants when
DistrictIMuaicipal a jury finds the defendant acted in self defense. RCW 9A.16.11 o. This law is applicable only t~
Division Chief criminal cases filed in District and Superior Courts. Any amounts ordered by those courts under this
Greg a. Hebard law are paid by the Legislature.
Juvenile Both Poulsbo ~ Bainbridge Island have adopted RCW 9A.16.11 0, which results in a legitimate
Division Chief defense argument that the Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island Municipal Judges also have the authority to
Sue A. Taaner order the city to pay reimbursement of defense costs to criminal defendants when a municipal jury
finds the defendant acted in self defense. Please see the attached analysis by our office's Senior Deputy
Civil/Child Support Prosecutor in charge of appellate litigation. This is precisely what occurred in the Pou/sbo v.
Division Chief Christopher Lyman case discussed in the attachment memorandum.
Bremerton and Port Orchard have not adopted RCW 9A.16.110, and accordingly their municipal
courts lack authority to order defense cost reimbursement in self defense cases.
I do Dot know whether your cities intended this expenditure of public funds when RCW 9A.16.110 was
adopted by the cities. Given current budget realities, I thought it best to notify you of this situation for
any action you deem appropriate. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments, or otherwise
want to discuss this or any other matter. My direct line is 360-337-4982, and my e-mail address is
<1Jabns@Co.kitsap. wa. us>.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Chiefs JetTDoran and Bill Cooper
Judges Jeffrey Tolman and Stephen Holman
Russell Hauge
Bonnie "Martin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Adult Cri..... A AcIIaiaiJlrllive DiviJioal. 614 Division Street. MS-lS. Port Orchard, WuhinJlOD 9I1~1 · (360) 137.7174. FAX (360) 1)7-4949
Juvenile Cn.iaII DiviIioD. 614 Divition SIreet. M$-lS · Port OrchIrcl Wuhiaaton 91166-4611 · (J60) )]1-SSOO. FAX (J60) ))7-Sm
Special "-uk Unit. 614 OMIioa Street. MS-15 · Port Orc:hard, Washin.on 91366-4611 · (J60) 337-7141. FAX ()6O) l)7.n29
Bainbridp Island Municipal Coun Division. 625 Winslow Way Euc. Blinbriclp Island, WuhiflllOll91110. (206) 710-4670. FAX (206) 710-1596 0
BretnCI1011 Municipal Court Division. 2]9 4thSlrat. Bremerton. WattiftllOn 91]]7-1112. (160) 471-2334. fAX (]6Q) 471.230]
Pon OrcMrcl Muaicipal Court Division. 614 Division Street. MS-1S. Port Orchard, WasbinJlOn 91166-4611 · (360) ]]7-1114. FAX (]60) ]37-4949
Poulsbo Municipal Coon Division. 614 Division Street. MS-1S. Port Orchard. Wuhinllon 98366-4611 · (360) ]]7-7114. FAX (160) }]1-4949
Civil Division. 614 Division Sire<<. MS-3SA. Port Orchlrd. Washiftllon91166-4611 · (360) 3)74992. FAX (160) J)7-7011
Child Support Divisioa · 614 Division Street. MS-3S · Port Orchard, Wuhinaton 9'~6I1 · (]6O) )]7.1020 · FAX (]60) 3l1-S7J)
Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Rulli D. lIallle
Proseculing Attorney August 26, 2002 Please reply to: 614 Division Street, M8-35, Port Orcbar~ W A 9836,
Direct Line: (360) 337-721
Car" I. Mav. Memorandum
Office Admillistrator
Cbristllm.C. C..d
CaSe Mana~t To: Jeff Jahns
Divilion QUe{
MJcbMl B. lav... FROM: Randall Sutton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Appeals Unit
Trial CC:
Divilion QUef
J elf..., J. ,..... DATE: August 26, 2002
DistriGItM_ipal
Divilion QUer RE: City of Poulsbo lI. Christopher Lyman
RAU No. 02-1-00773-1
G....& H.....d Po Muaic. No. 12698703
lwenill
Divilion Chief
This case involves an appeal by the City of the municipal judge's award of self-defense costs
Sue A. Taaaer to a defendant charged by the City. After considerable thoupt and research, I have
CivillCllild Support concluded that i do not have an argument that I can make in good faith on appeal.
Divilion Chief
In the trial court, the City argued that a municipal court cannot order the State of Washington
to reimburse a defendant under RCW 9A.16.110, citing Seattle v. Fontanilla. 1 The City
further argued that under Fontanilla, a municipal Court may not impose a duty upon a city to
pay the defendant's cost of defense.2 I have no quarrel with the first conclusion;' that is
clearly the holding of Fontanilla. I cannot agree that the second principle is an accurate
reading of the case, or that the correct reading of Fontanilla's second holding applies to this
case.
Fontanilla did not hold that a municipal court may not order a city to pay a defendant's costs. .
Rather, the Court merely applied basic principles of statutory construction: RCW 9A.16.110
by its terms only applies the "State ofWashington."J Therefore the legislature did not intend
such costs to be paid by the city.
I Seattle v. Font/l1lilla, 128 Wn. 2d 492, 500, 909 P.2d 1294 (1996).
2 Citina Fontanilla, 128 Wn. 2d at 503.
3 Fontanilla, 128 Wn. 2d at 503.
AduIl CriIIIiMIA A....iIII'IIiw DiYiIioM. 614 DiriAoa.... MS-35. Port 0n:hInI, W...... 9I~1 · (360) 337-1174. FAX (360) 331-4949
.... CriIIIiMI DmIiaII. '14 DiWIioe ..... MS-3S · POIt 0rcIIInI. w....... 91366-4611 · (,.) 3)7-5500 · PAX (360) 337-5509
SpecW.-... UIIiI. 614 DiviIioIa SINII, N$.3S · PGIt Or*nl ....... 91366-4611 · (360) ]31-71. · FAX (]dO) ]31-1U~
................. M--=ipaI eo.t Di__. 625 WiMlow Way EaIt. BaiIIIIridp IsIMd. W__._ 91110. (206) 710-4670. FAX (206) 710-1596 ~
........... eo. om.iOII. 239.... SInIt · ...... w....... 91331-1112 · (360) 471-2J14 · FAX (360) 471-2303
Pall 0IdIInI........ c-t om.iOII. 614 om.iOIIs.., MS-35. PoIt 0rdIIrcI, W....... 91366-481 · (360) 337-1174. FAX (360) 337-4949
POIIIIbo....... eo.t DmIion. 614 oms.. s...., MS-35. Port 0n:hInI. w...... 91366-4611 · (360) 337-7174. FAX (360) 337....949
CiYiI Diwisiaa · 614 DMIioa s-. MS-J5A · 'on 0n:MnI, w........ 91366-4611 · (360) 337-4992 · FAX (360) 3J7-7013
Child SuppoIt Diviaion. '14 DiYition SIreIIt, MS-35. PartOrcMrd, W....... 91366-4611 · (360) 337-1020. FAX (360) 337-5733
------~-
Memoraadlua re: City of Poulsbo v. Christopher Lyman
August 26, 2002
Page 2
We, however, are not dealing with an enactment by the legislature. Instead, the relevant
provision is PMC 9.01.040, which specifically adopts RCW 9A.16.II0by reference. There
is no analogous provision in the Seattle City Code, so Fontanilla does not control.
Moreover, PMC 9.01.040 was adop~d in 1997, a year after Fontanilla was decided by the
Supreme Court. The legislative body is presumed to be aware of the Court's precedents." It
must be presumed, then, that the council knew when it adopted RCW 9 A.16.11 0 by reference
that the Stale would not be liable for the costs awarded under this code section.
Another standard maxim of statutory construction is that the legislative body is presumed not
to "engage in vain and useless acts and that some significant purpose or object is implicit in
every legislative enactment. ,,5 The only function of RCW 9A.16.100 is defense cost
reimbursement. Because the City has DO authority to order the State to pay these costs, the
only intent the council could have had' in' adopting this section would be for the City to be
liable.
A review of other mWlicipal codes supports this conclusion. 'Of the 77 codes I was able to
access on the Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington web site,' only four
other cities had specifically adopted RCW 9A.16.110 by reference: Bainbridge Island,
Hunt's Point, Medina, and Milton. A large number of the cities, on the other hand, had
adopted the remainder of RCW ch. 9A.16 in whole or in part, specifically excluding RCW
9A.16.110. While it is entirely possible that the adoption of this section by Poulsbo was not
intentional, there are no grounds basis for invalidating a statute in the courts on that basis.
Accordingly, I am dismissing the City's appeal. I believe that if future awards such as the
one in this case are to be avoided, it will be up to the council to modify the city code, if that is
its desire. I would also note that Bainbridge Island has also adopted this section. Perhaps
those city officials should also be advised of the situation, lest it was not the council's intent
to provide for reimbursement.
· Terry v. Tacoma, 109 Wn. App. 448, 457, 36 P.3d 553 (2001); State v. Babic, 140 Wn.2d 250, 264,
996 P.2d 610 (2000).
S Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d 58,"'82, 993 P.2d 901 (2000).
6 See bt\l:/lwww.mrsc.or2lcodes.htm.
4
\
-
I
(
L
(
,
{{v.L~ (V\ l,\.N'U~ Ceoc:
. .
.. J
( 9.11.040 Defeases.
The following" statutes oftbe state of Washington are
adopted by reference:
RCW 9A.12.010 Insanity
9A.16.010 -Definition
9A.16.020 Use" of force~ When lawful
9A.16.060 " Duress
9A.16.070 Entrapment
9A.16.080 Action for being dM-ined on
mercantile establishment of premises
for investigation - -ReasoDlblc"
grounds" as defense
9A.16.090 Intoxication
9A. 16. 100 Use of force on children - Policy -
Actions presumed unreasoaable
9A.16.110 Defending against violent ~e -
Reimbursement
9.tl.1
CII_... '.11 RCW
.--
.... ) 9A.08.010 General requirements of
. )
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE culpability .
.-,.A.08.020 Liability of conduct of IUlOtIH
IM"I: complicity .
'.11.111 GeaeIW proYilions. 9A.08.030 Criminal liability of
'.11.121 Prial:lllles 01 liability. corporations and persons a.
'.11.131 Del....... under a duty to act in their
'.11'- o.l..,t. behalf.
'.11.11I PIDIIItJ · (Ord. as-08 t 2, 1985)
'.11 Me A...JIllIRtl to state
ltatue.. 9.01.130 Def-.
The . foUoWinl statutes ~f die stale
'.11.118 G-w provilions. Washington are Idopted.by reference:.
The fonowing statutes 9f the state of RCW.
Wllhinaton. are ldoptDd by ref~nce: 9A.12.010 Insanity .
RCW 9A.16.010 Definition.
9.01.0S5 Citizen immunity of aiding 9A.16.020 Use of force - When lawful.
officer. 9A.16.060 Duress. .
9.01.110 Omission, when not 9A.16.070 Entrapment
punishable. 9A.16.0BO Action for being detained on
9~Ol.120 Civil remedies preserved. rrlercantile establishment of
9.01.130 Sendinlleuer, when complete. premises for inv~stiaation -
9.01.160 Applicmon tQ existing civil "Reasonable groUnds".85
.(~) ripts. defense.
9.01.200 Defense of person or property 9A.16.090 Intoxication.
.gainst heinous crime - 9A.16.100 Use of force on children.
Reimbursement by state for 9A.16.110 Defense of person or p~
expenses of defendant. -ainst beino.&critFa .
9A.04.02O Purposes - Principles of (Ord. 91-3412, 1991: Old. 85-0812. 1985'
construction. fit.04O ~
91..04.040 Cassel of crime.
9A.04.050 People capable of committing Jbe following statutes of the state
crimes (capability of children). Washington are adopted by reference:
9A.04.060 Common law to supplement RCW
_lutes. 7.20.010 Contempt of COUrt defined.
9A.04.070 Who ainenable to criminal 7 .20..020 Punishment - General.
statutes. . 7.20.030 Contempt in presence of cow
9A.04.090 Application of general - Summary punishment.
provisions of the code. 7.20.040 Procedwe in other cases.
9A.04.100 Proof beyond a reasonable 7 .20.050 Production of defendant if in
doubt. custOdy.
9A.04.110 Definitions. 7.20.060 How prosecuted.
(Ord. 91-34 A 1, 1991: Ord. 85-0812, 1985) 7.20.010 Execution of warrant - Bond.
7.20.080 Return of warrant -
9.11.020 PrillCiples of liability. ExanU nati on of defendant
The following statutes of the state of 7.20.090 Judgment and sentence.
Washington are adopted by ref~rence: 7.20.100 Indemnity to injured party.
~ t
..... _... ./
9-3
.
TITLE 9A 2000
reasonable grounds to believe that. the person so unreasonable actions and is not intended to be 2. If Y
detained was committing or aUempting to commit exclusive. is n
theft or shoplifting on such premises of su.ch mai
merchandise. As used in this section, Itreasonable [1986 c 149 t 1.] 3. If y
grounds" shall include, but not be limited to, RCW 'A.I'.l!O Defendiog against violent is y
knowledge that a person has concealed possession a. Pro
crime-Reimbursenleat.
of unpurchased merc.handise of a mercantile (1) No person in the state. shall be placed in b. Pro
establishment, and a "reasonable time" shall mean
the time necessary to permit the person detained legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protect- ly?
to make a statement or to refuse to make a state- iog by any reasonable means necessary, himself or c. Pro
ment, and the time n~ssary to examine employ- herself, his or her family, or his or her real or ty?
ees and records of the mercantile establishment personal property, or for coming to the aid of d. C01
relative to the ownership of the merchandise. another who is in imminent danger of or the wh~
victim of assault, robbery. kidnapping, arson, Ofl
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 t 9A.16.080.] burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime e. COI
as defined in RCW 9.94A.030. wh
RCW 9A.16.090 Intoxication. (2) When a person charged with a crime hei
No act committed by a person while in a listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not f. Enj
state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed gui Ity by reason of self-defense, the state of sut
less criminal by reason of his condition, but Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all ev~
whenever the actual existence of any particular reasonable costs, including loss of.time, legal fees cri]
mental state is a necessary element to constitute incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her dei
a particular species or degree of en me, the fact of defense. This reimbursement is not an indepen-
his intoxication may be taken into consideration dent cause of action. To award these reasonable [1995 c 44 ~
in determining such mental state. costs the trier of fact must find that the 18.. Fonner]
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 ~ 9A.16.090.] defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by
a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of NOTES:
RCW 9A.16.100 Use of force on children- fact makes a determination of self-defense, the Use 01 ct
Policy-Actions presumed unreasonable. judge shall determine the amount of the award. See note folio'
(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a
It is the policy of this state to protect chil- defendant's actions were justified by self-defense.,
dren from assault and abuse and to encourage jf the trier of fact also determines that the defen-
parents, teachers, and their authorized ag~ts to dant was engaged in cnminal conduct substantially CLAS
use methods of correction and restraint of chil- related to the events gi ving rise to the charges
dren that are not dangerous to the children. fi led against the defendant the judge may deny or SectioDl
However~ the physical discipline of a child is not reduce the amount of the award. In determining 9A~20.0 1 0
unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and the amount of the award, the judge shall also
is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for consider the seriousness of the initial criminal 9A.20.020
purposes of restraining or correcting the child. conduct.
Any use of force on a child by any other person Nothing in this section precludes the legisla-
is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate ture from using the sundry claims process to grant 9A.20.021
and is authorized in advance by the child's parent an award where none was granted under this
or guardian for purposes of restraining or correct- section or to. grant a higher award than one granted
ing the child. under this section. 9A.20.030
The following actions are presumed unrea- (4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under
sonable when used to correct or restrain a child: this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall 9A.20.040
( 1) Throwing, kicking. burning, or cutting a child; consider the same questions as must be answered
(2) striking a child with ~ closed fist; (3) shaking in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of
a child under age three; (4) interfering with a this section.
child.s breathing; (5) threatening a child with a (5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under NOTES:
deadly weapon; or (6) doing any other act that is this section has been submitted to a jury, and the Auessmaats :
likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court offender SUJ
greater than transient pain or minor temporary shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in pa001ees: M
marks. TIle age, size, and condition of the child substantially the following form: probationen
and the location of the injury shall be considered answer
when determining whether the bodily harm is yes or no
reasonable or moderate. This list is illustrative of 1. Was the finding of not guilty
based upon self-defense? .. .. . . .
10
N:J.,.
___.m__~
100 TITLE 9A 2000
Isonable actions and is not intended to be 2. If your answer to question 1 RCW 9A.20.010 ClaaHlcatlea and clesq
si ve. is DO, do not answer the re- 01 crimes.
i c 149 ~ I.J maining question. (1) Classified Felonies. (a) The pal
3. If your answer to question 1 classification of each. felony defined in T
V 9A.16.110 DefelMliDg against violent is yes, was the defendant: RCW is expressly designated in the sectior
&-aelmbu.-..ent. a. Protecting ,ltimself or herself! iog it.
..... (b) For purposes of sentencing, cIa
( 1) No person in the state shall be placed in b. Protecting his or her fami- felonies are desianated as one of three cl~
jeopardy of aft)' kind whatsoever for protect- ly1 ..... follows:
y any reasonable mtWlS necessary, himself or c. Protecting his or her proper- (i) Class A felony; or
:If, his or her rami Iy, or his or her real or ty? ..... (ii) ClassB felony; or
-nat property, or for coming to the aid of d. Coming to the aid of another (iii) Class C felony.
ler who is in imminent danger of or the who was in imminent danger (2) Misderneanon and Gross Misdem
n of assault, robbery. kidnapping, arson, of a heinous crime? .. . . . . (a) Any crime punishable by a fine of n<l
ary, rape, murder, or any other violent eri me e. Coming to the aid of another than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonl
tined in RCW 9.94A.030. who was the victi m of a a county jail for not more than ninety days
~2) When a person charged with a cri me heinous crime? ..... both such fine and imprisonment is a miscL
in subsection (I) of this section is found not f. Engaged in criminal conduct Of. Whenever the performance of an)'
y by reason of self-defense, the state of substantially related to the prohibited by any statute. ~ no penalty
ington shall reimburse the defendant for all events giving rise to the violation. of such statute is imposed. the Cl
table costs, includinl loss of time, legal fees crime with which the ting of such act shall'.be a misdemeanor.
-ed, and other expenses involved in his or her defendant is charged? . ... . . . (b) All crimes other than felonies and
see This reimburseJbent is not an indepen- meanors are gross misdemeanors.
~ause of action. To aw..d these reasonable [1995 c 44 t 1; 1989 c 94 t I; 1977 ex.s. c 206
i the trier of fact must find that the t 8. Formerly RCW 9.01.200.] [1984 c 258 t 808; 1975 1st ex.s. C
:!ant's claim of self-clefcRSe was sustained by 9A.20.010.]
lOnderance of the evidence. If the trier of NOTES:
nakes a determination of self-defense, the Use of dead.y 'orce-Le&ilJative recopition: NOTES:
shall determine the amount of the award. See note following RCW 9A.16.040. Court ImprovelDeat Act .f 19N-EI
3) Notwithstanding a finding that a dates-Se.erablllty-S1aort tltle-l984 c 15
:!ant's actions were justified by self-defense, notes following RCW 3.30.0 10.
trier of fact also delermines that the defen- Chapter 9A.1O RCW RCW 9A.28.020 Authorized senteoe
vas engaged in criminal conduct substantially CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES crimes COIDIIIitted before JuI, 1, 191M.
d to the events giving rise to the charges
'Iainst the defeRdant the judge may deny or Sectloal (1) Felony. Every person convicte
: the amount of the award. In determini ng 9A.20.010 Classification and designation classjfi~ felony shall be punished as folio'
Dount of the award. the judge shall also of crimes. (a) For a class A felony, by imprisonl1
jer the seriousness of the initial criminal 9A.20.020 Authorized sentences for a state correctional institution far a. maximul
ct. crimes committed before fixed by the court of not less tbIn twenty yc
~hjng in this sectioo precludes the legis la- July I, 1984. by a fine in an amount fixed by tbe court
om using the sundry claims process to grant 9A.20.021 Maximum sentences for crimes more than fifty thousand dollars, or by bot
'Ird where none was granted under this committed July I, 1984, imprisonment and fine;
1 or to. grant a higher award than one granted and after. (b) For a class B felony, by imprisonl1
this section. 9 A.20.030 Alternative to a fine-Restitu- a state COJTeCtional institution for a maximul
4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under tion. of not more than ten years, or by a fine
~ion is decided by . judge, the judge shall 9A.20.040 Prosecutions related to felonies amount fixed by the court of not more than
ler the same questiOllS as must be answered defined outside Title 9 A thousand dollars, or by both such i mpriso
special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of RCW. and fine;
:ction. (c) For a class C felony, by imprisonn
5) Whenever the isslIe of self-defense under NOTES: a state correctional institution for a maximul
:ction has been sublllitted to a jury, and the Aacsaments R:qUimI of CODvicted persons of not more than five years, or by a fine
as found the defendlnt not guilty, the court offeader supervision: RCW 9.94A.270. amount fixed by the court of not more th
nstruct the jury to reIUm a special verdict in pa'OIees: RCW 72.04A.120. thousand dollars, or by both such impriso
ntially the following form: probationers: RCW 10.64.120. and fine.
answer (2) Gross Misdemeanor. Every perso
victcd of a gross misdemeanor defined in Ti
yes or no RCW shall be punished by imprisonment
1. Was the finding of DOt guilty county jail fora maximum term fixed by tlM
based upon self-defense? . . . . .
11
-_.~---- --
b.~~ (?4~
, Susan Kasper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rod Kaseguma, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: Noveater 15, 2002
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 20, 2002
PUBLISHED: November 27, 2002
EFFECTIVE DATE: - 2, 2002
ORDINANCE NUMBER: 2002-46
9470011 04p4lO93.01ISBFHO 1!.1X)C (11/6102) -2-