Opinion ID: 2581317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Governmental Mismanagement

Text: Petitioner Everybodytalksabout argues Respondent State of Washington should have discovered that Mr. Prevost was incarcerated in Skagit County on the day Mr. Jones was killed in Seattle and could not have been present with Petitioner and Mr. Lopez to witness the incident as he falsely indicated in his statement to detectives and as he falsely testified during his extensive testimony in the first trial. [74] He claims Respondent's failure to discover those circumstances constituted case mismanagement. [75] He asserts this mismanagement caused him to relinquish his right to a speedy trial. [76] Respondent claims it acted reasonably in investigating Mr. Prevost's whereabouts on the day of the incident. [77] It asserts Detective Ramirez obtained a booking recap which indicated Mr. Prevost was not in jail on the day of the incident. [78] Respondent maintains this information could easily have been obtained by Petitioner. [79] Respondent asserts that it promptly informed the court and Petitioner's attorney when it discovered the perjury of Mr. Prevost while the first trial was underway. Respondent argues that, at any rate, Petitioner has not shown he was prejudiced by any claimed mismanagement. [80] The Court of Appeals concluded Detective Ramirez reasonably relied on the accuracy of the booking recap and had no reason to believe Mr. Prevost had perjured himself in his statement implicating Petitioner. [81] The court indicated the conduct did not amount to governmental misconduct warranting dismissal. [82] CrR 8.3(b) provides: On Motion of Court. 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. The court shall set forth its reasons in a written order. To obtain dismissal of a case under CrR 8.3(b) a defendant must show (1) arbitrary government action or government misconduct and (2) prejudice affecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. [83] The trial court's decision will be reviewed under the manifest abuse of discretion standard. [84] The trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it found Respondent's conduct did not constitute governmental mismanagement. Respondent reasonably relied on the booking recap sheet. When Respondent discovered during the first trial that Mr. Prevost had committed perjury in his testimony, it informed the court and defense counsel. Petitioner has not shown he was prejudiced by the action of Respondent. Petitioner has presented no facts establishing that he was denied a right to a speedy trial. Even if he did, he still has not shown how he was prejudiced by that denial. Respondent State of Washington did not mismanage this case.