State v. Brand
In State v. Brand, 120 Wn.2d 365, 369-71, 842 P.2d 470 (1992), the defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree.
Brand appealed and filed a personal restraint petition, arguing newly discovered evidence regarding the effects of testosterone treatment on his mental capacity at the time of the shooting warranted a new trial. Brand, 120 Wn.2d at 368.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeal and personal restraint petition, affirmed the conviction, and dismissed the petition.
More than one year later, Brand filed a motion in superior court for a new trial on grounds the previously unknown psychiatric effects of combined steroid and antidepressant use would probably change the result of the trial. Brand, 120 Wn.2d at 368.
The superior court granted Brand relief under CrR 7.8(b)(5).
When the issue reached this court on appeal, we treated Brand's motion as moving for a new trial under CrR 7.8(b)(2), and subject to RCW 10.73.140.
The Court held the phrase in CrR 7.8(b)(5), "any other reason," meant a reason different from the reasons specifically identified in the rule. Brand's reason for the motion most appropriately fell under CrR 7.8(b)(2).
The Court concluded the drafters of CrR 7.8(b) intended RCW 10.73.140 to apply by analogy because "to hold otherwise would thwart the legislative purpose by allowing repetitious collateral attacks in the trial courts in contravention of the policy limiting collateral review." Brand, 120 Wn.2d at 370.
The Court held a court may not consider a CrR 7.8(b) motion if the movant has previously brought a collateral attack on similar grounds. Brand, 120 Wn.2d at 370 (citing RCW 10.73.140).