“[1] CrR 8.3(b) authorizes a trial court to dismiss any criminal prosecution “on its own motion in the furtherance of justice”. We have previously interpreted CrR 8.3(b) to require a showing of arbitrary action or governmental misconduct before dismissal of a prosecution is appropriate. State v. Burri, 87 Wn.2d 175, 550 P.2d 507 (1976); State v. Sulgrove, 19 Wn.App. 860, 578 P.2d 74 (1978); State v. Starrish, 86 Wn.2d 200, 544 P.2d 1 (1975). However, we have made it clear that “governmental misconduct” need not be of an evil or dishonest nature, simple mismanagement is sufficient. State v. Sulgrove, supra. The Court of Appeals held the trial court’s ultimate decision to dismiss was not based on CrR 8.3(b). Rather, the court reasoned, since “the trial court’s ultimate decision to dismiss depended on its approval of defense counsel’s suggestion that it would require the State to proceed with certain witnesses”, the court acted pursuant to CrR 4.7(g)(7)(i), which provides; (7) Sanctions. (i) If any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery of material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, dismiss the action or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. State v. Dailey, 23 Wn.App. 233, 236, 596 P.2d 1351 (1979). . . . CrR 4.7(a)(1) requires the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant numerous items of information no later than the omnibus hearing. Most of the information included in the September 23 omnibus order fell within CrR 4.7(a)(1)(i)-(vi), the discovery rules, yet the State did not comply with the order until October 29, 1977, over 1 month later. Moreover, the names and addresses of the State’s witnesses were not disclosed until November 4, 1977, less than 1 court day before trial. Further, the State was dilatory in its compliance with the bill of particulars and extremely late in its dismissal of the charges against the codefendant Pope. Finally, in oral argument before this court the State conceded it had indeed been negligent in its handling of the case. Without question the record amply supports the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal prosecution under CrR 8.3(b).” State v. Daley, 93 Wn.2d 454, 456, 457, 459, 610 P.2d 357 [No. 46616. En Banc.May 1, 1980].
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 12:39:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015