Seattle Attorneys Blog
Pursuant to CrR 8.3(a), a Washington trial court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint upon motion of the prosecutor. Pursuant to CrR 8.3(b), the court may dismiss a prosecution because of governmental misconduct or arbitrary action if the defendant’s rights have been prejudiced, materially affecting his right to a fair trial. Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c), the court must dismiss without prejudice if the court grants a defendant’s motion for pretrial dismissal because of insufficient evidence. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could dismiss a criminal case with prejudice when the state had moved for dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a).
According to the opinion, a juvenile defendant, identified by the appeals court as “WH” was charged with third degree malicious mischief, first degree animal cruelty, and second degree assault by strangulation, and harassment – threats to kill, arising from an incident involving his girlfriend, identified as “KM.” He made a preliminary appearance in juvenile court. The state added charges for attempted second degree murder and, alternatively, second degree attempted felony murder and transferred the case to adult court.
The state subsequently asked to return the case to juvenile court with the attempted murder charges dismissed. The juvenile was arraigned again under the original case number and pleaded not guilty in juvenile court.
WH turned 18 in December 2022. The state moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice a few days before the time for trial would expire. The state explained that KM was “not in a[n] emotional position for the case to move forward at this time.” The juvenile’s attorney had been trying to reach KM for “about six months,” but had been unsuccessful.
WH asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. The state noted that any refiling would have to occur in adult court because WH was no longer subject to juvenile jurisdiction because he had turned 18.
The trial court concluded it had discretion to grant the motion and dismiss the case either with or without prejudice. The court pointed out WH would be in much greater jeopardy if the court dismissed the case without prejudice than he would be if KM were cooperative while the case was in juvenile court. It further determined that, although there was a reasonable cause for dismissal, WH would be unduly prejudiced because of the loss of juvenile jurisdiction if the case were dismissed without prejudice. The court acknowledged it is in the interest of justice for victims to be heard, but ultimately concluded dismissal without prejudice would result in undue prejudice to WH.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, but the court did not find any mismanagement, misconduct, or arbitrary action on the part of the state.
The state appealed, arguing the trial court had abused its discretion and misinterpreted and misapplied CrR 8.3(a). The state argued the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice when the state had only moved to dismiss the case without prejudice.
WH argued the court had discretion to dismiss with prejudice if it found he would be unfairly prejudiced if the state refiled the charges.
Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3 tolls the speedy trial period. In State v. Bible, Division One held that there must be s sufficient reason other than running of the speedy trial period justifying dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a).
The state argued the trial court had improperly dismissed with prejudice without finding the state engaged in misconduct or arbitrary conduct. WH argued the trial court could exercise its discretion and grant the motion with or without prejudice.
The appeals court noted that CrR 8.3(a) provided that the court could dismiss charges “upon written motion of the prosecuting attorney.” The appeals court concluded Subsection (a) does not allow the court to dismiss the case with prejudice if doing so exceeds the prosecutor’s motion. The appeals court noted that subsection (c)(4) expressly requires the court to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss “without prejudice,” which gives the state flexibility to refile. The appeals court stated Subsection (a) also provides flexibility by allowing the state to determine whether to move for dismissal with or without prejudice and the court is limited by the scope of the state’s motion. The appeals court noted this prevents the state from avoiding bringing a motion to dismiss without prejudice out of concern the court would instead dismiss with prejudice. The appeals court determined the state’s motion should be granted or dismissed as brought before the time for trial expires because substantive issues may still be resolved at trial. The appeals court noted that the state should be afforded the opportunity to proceed until the time for trial expires.
The appeals court concluded that the court must grant or deny the state’s motion as brought under CrR 8.3(a). If the trial court does not want to grant a state motion to dismiss without prejudice, it can instead deny the motion and allow the state to deal with the expiring time for trial. The court also has the option to consider dismissal pursuant to CrR 8.3(b), and can dismiss with prejudice on its own if it finds government misconduct or arbitrary action and prejudice to the defendant.
The appeals court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.
The appeals court noted that the amendments to RCW 13.40.300, passed since the trial court’s order, would apply to the case on remand. The statute was amended to extend juvenile court criminal jurisdiction for crimes committed under the age of 18 when the defendant was under 21 when the information was filed.
If your child is being investigated or charged with a crime, a skilled Washington juvenile criminal defense attorney can fight to protect their rights and their future. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562 for a consultation.