“The State’s failure to timely identify the actual identity of Tina Holden as Tina Holdman constitutes mismanagement based on the readily available information in the prosecutor’s office during the pendency of this case which established her actual identity as Tina Holman. While the mismanagement is not dishonest, it remains mismanagement. Clerk’s Papers at 138. The court concluded that the mismanagement of the information regarding Holdman’s true identity constituted “violations of the duties imposed under CrR 4.7(h)(7)(i) and of the obligations created by CrR 8.3(b),” and dismissed the case with prejudice. Clerk’s Papers at 138. . . . A. Discovery Violation and Mismanagement. CrR 4.7 governs criminal discovery. State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 826, 845 P.2d 1017 (1993) (citing State v. Pawlyk, 115 Wn.2d 457, 471, 800 P.2d 338 (1990)). ...Among the prosecutor’s obligations is the following: (1) Except as otherwise provided by protective orders or as to matters not subject to disclosure, the prosecuting attorney “shall” disclose to the defendant the following material and information within the prosecuting attorney’s possession or control no later than the omnibus hearing: (i) the names and addresses of persons whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial, together with any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements of such witnesses[.] CrR 4.7(a). The discovery rule imposes a continuing duty to disclose. Specifically, CrR 4.7(g)(2) provides: If, after compliance with these rules or orders pursuant thereto, a party discovers additional material or information which is subject to disclosure, the party “shall” promptly notify the other party or their counsel of the existence of such additional material, and if the additional material or information is discovered during trial, the court “shall” also be notified. CrR 4.7(h)(2). ...The remedies for discovery violations are set forth in CrR 4.7(h)(7)(i), which states that if a party fails to comply with an applicable discovery rule, the court may “grant a continuance, dismiss the action or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.” CrR 4.7(h)(7)(i). DISMISSAL IS ALSO PERMITTED UNDER CRR 8.3(B), WHICH PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, THAT: THE COURT, IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, MAY DISMISS ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION DUE TO ARBITRARY ACTION OR GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED WHICH MATERIALLY AFFECT THE ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.” State v. Ramos, 83 Wn.App. 622, 628, 634, 922 P.2d 193 (1996).
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 12:42:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015