State v. White
| Decision Date | 09 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 46431,46431 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Rex Charles WHITE, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Grant S. Meiner, Clallam County Pros. Atty., Kenneth L. Cowsert, Deputy Pros. Atty., Port Angeles, for appellant.
John Henry Browne, Seattle, for respondent.
Defendant Rex Charles White was charged with rape. At his December 19, 1977 preliminary hearing, bail was set at $50,000, which he was unable to post. White's arraignment was held December 22, 1977, and the following colloquy occurred:
One day before the trial date, defendant moved for dismissal under CrR 3.3. The trial court denied the motion and following trial White was convicted of second degree rape. He appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In order to retain its victory on appeal, it was incumbent upon the State to distinguish past decisions of this court directed at noncompliance with CrR 3.3. The State recognized its burden and sought to meet it by arguing that defendant waived his right to trial within 60 days in the colloquy set forth above. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reversed the trial court and dismissed the case with prejudice. State v. White, 23 Wash.App. 438, 597 P.2d 420 (1979).
We agree with the Court of Appeals and adopt its opinion as our own in this case. Except for RAP 13.2, 1 as it then existed, it is unlikely this matter would have been accepted for review in this court.
The case was decided by a divided Court of Appeals. The dissenting judge noted that our court-adopted speedy trial rule is not the equivalent of the constitutionally mandated rule and urged this court to retreat from its rigid enforcement of CrR 3.3. Further, he urged that in the interest of justice "the draconian remedy of dismissal be avoided" and that we waive the rule in this instance. White, at 444, 597 P.2d 420.
At the time relevant, CrR 3.3 read in pertinent part:
(a) Responsibility of Court. It shall be the responsibility of the court to insure to each person charged with crime a speedy trial in accordance with the provisions of this rule.
(c) Priority Over Civil Cases. ... A defendant unable to obtain pretrial release shall have priority and the charge shall be brought to trial within 60 days following the preliminary appearance.
(g) Dismissal With Prejudice. A criminal charge not brought to trial as required by this rule shall be dismissed with prejudice.
At the outset, we acknowledge that, while founded upon the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the 60-day trial rule for a defendant in custody prescribed by CrR 3.3 is not of constitutional magnitude. State v. Mack, 89 Wash.2d 788, 576 P.2d 44 (1978).
CrR 3.3, or some version of it, has been in effect since 1973. It has undergone a number of amendments. Even as this opinion is being prepared, the rule has again undergone a substantial revision, hopefully one that will obviate the need for further consideration of cases such as this in the future. Since 1973, throughout the various changes and revisions, we have consistently insisted upon strict compliance with the rule and a sanction of dismissal with prejudice in those instances where the rule was not followed. CrR 3.3(g); State v. Williams, 85 Wash.2d 29, 530 P.2d 225 (1975); State v. Striker, 87 Wash.2d 870, 557 P.2d 847 (1976); State v. Peterson, 90 Wash.2d 423, 585 P.2d 66 (1978); State v. Alexus, 91 Wash.2d 492, 588 P.2d 1171 (1979); State v. McIntyre, 92 Wash.2d 620, 600 P.2d 1009 (1979).
As may be ascertained from a review of State v. Williams, supra, the first case which we considered under CrR 3.3, unanimity did not exist on the court. Most of the issues raised by the dissent in the Court of Appeals, plus some others, were vigorously argued by Justice Hale in dissent. He did not prevail.
Since Williams, numerous appeals have been before this court concerning various aspects of CrR 3.3. We have adhered to the basic principle underlying the rule, that it is in the best interest of all concerned that criminal matters be tried while they are fresh.
To assure compliance with the early trial rule, we have felt it necessary to re-enforce it with the sanction of dismissal with prejudice in those instances of noncompliance. On the infrequent occasion when noncompliance with CrR 3.3 does occur, as in this instance, a defendant who may have been found guilty avoids the maximum punishment of the law. Considerable emotion may ensue following a dismissal in such a case.
Here, the dissent in the Court of Appeals focuses on the unjust result occasioned between society and this particular defendant. We focus on the unjust results that routinely occurred in pre-CrR 3.3 days. Then, it was commonplace for trials to be delayed for many months. Witnesses became unavailable, memories dimmed, evidence disappeared, and charges were required to be reduced or dismissed. We continue to be convinced that many more injustices between society and defendants are avoided as a result of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Campbell
...more evidence, did not prejudice Campbell's defense. Trial within 60 days is not a constitutional mandate. Accord, State v. White, 94 Wash.2d 498, 501, 617 P.2d 998 (1980); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 523, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) ("no constitutional basis for holding t......
-
State v. Smith
...speedy-trial objection in superior court. The argument fails. Violations of CrR 3.3 are not constitutionally based. State v. White, 94 Wash.2d 498, 502, 617 P.2d 998 (1980). Further, the defendant has not shown the prejudice necessary to sustain a constitutional claim, State v. Parris, 30 W......
-
State v. Hoffman
...103 Wash.2d 1, 15, 691 P.2d 929 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1094, 105 S.Ct. 2169, 85 L.Ed.2d 526 (1985); State v. White, 94 Wash.2d 498, 501, 617 P.2d 998 (1980).29 State v. Tidwell, 32 Wash.App. 971, 976, 651 P.2d 228 (1982).30 Tidwell, 32 Wash.App. at 976, 651 P.2d 228 and cases cited ......
-
State v. Iniguez
...not necessarily a constitutional deprivation." State v. Fladebo, 113 Wash.2d 388, 393, 779 P.2d 707 (1989) (citing State v. White, 94 Wash.2d 498, 501, 617 P.2d 998 (1980)). ¶ 31 Further, the early versions of the time for trial rules did not necessarily indicate an intent to create a rule ......