Opinion ID: 2452941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DISMISSAL UNDER CrR 8.3(b)

Text: ¶ 18 A court 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[s] the accused's right to a fair trial. [10] CrR 8.3(b). These requirements are similar to the preaccusatorial delay requirements. First, the defendant must show arbitrary government action or misconduct, which may include simple mismanagement. State v. Michielli, 132 Wash.2d 229, 239-40, 937 P.2d 587 (1997). Second, the defendant must show actual prejudice affecting his fair trial rights. Id. at 240, 937 P.2d 587. Unlike the due process balancing analysis, a trial court's denial of dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hanna, 123 Wash.2d 704, 715, 871 P.2d 135 (1994). ¶ 19 A preaccusatorial delay analysis under CrR 8.3(b) is substantially the same as the due process balancing analysis. CrR 8.3(b) may of course be used in situations other than preaccusatorial delay wherever there is government misconduct and prejudice to the defendant. Preaccusatorial delay can be understood as a subcategory of government misconduct under CrR 8.3(b). ¶ 20 Denying dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) was appropriate. As explained above, the judge correctly refused to dismiss the case under the due process balancing analysis. [11] Like the due process balancing test, even where a defendant shows some actual prejudice and State misconduct, the judge may in her discretion refuse to dismiss under CrR 8.3(b) if the actual prejudice is slight and the misconduct is not too egregious. See CrR 8.3(b) (trial court may dismiss upon a showing of government misconduct and prejudice to the defendant); see also Hanna, 123 Wash.2d at 715, 871 P.2d 135 (trial court's decision under CrR 8.3(b) reviewed for abuse of discretion). Here, the judge correctly determined that Oppelt could receive a fair trial. The refusal to dismiss under CrR 8.3(b) was not an abuse of discretion.