Court Opinion

ID: 9627903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:58:30.114355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:52.239844
License: Public Domain

Swanson, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the result only because we are bound to follow State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 557 P.2d 847 (1976). Given the application of State v. Striker to this case, as correctly pointed out in the majority opinion, the police had an obligation to act on the information they had. This they did not do. They had the address Nelson gave at the time of the booking, 3201 16th Street in Everett. Police failed to act on this information and therefore Nelson cannot be considered unavailable.
I must add that I share the views expressed by Judge Reed in his concurring opinion in State v. Wirth, 39 Wn. App. 550, 555, 694 P.2d 1113, review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1027 (1985), where he stated,
I confess I always have had difficulty with the concept that delay between filing an information and defendant's arrest in some way harms the defendant or society and must result in dismissal with prejudice. Our speedy trial rules are tough enough on the prosecution as it is, without making them more so.
In my view a defendant should be made to prove actual prejudice from any delay before dismissal is con*587sidered. In the real world, it is nearly always the defendant who seeks to delay his day of judgment.
Some strictures on the prosecuting attorney are called for, but none so drastic as described by Striker and its progeny.
Review denied by Supreme Court July 1, 1987.