State v. Brown
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtFearing, J.
¶1 Neither party, out of principle, will budge one cent. So we are asked to resolve a $17 dispute— who should pay for the copying of a 911 recording demanded by a pecunious criminal defendant during discovery? The State offers Daniel Brown’s counsel the option either to listen to the recording at the prosecutor’s office or to pay the sheriff’s office reasonable costs for a copy. Brown argues that he need not pay for discovery and thus the State’s proposal violates CrR 4.7, RCW 10.01.160, and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution. He moved below for dismissal or, alternatively,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Young v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Young v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. GrenningWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. BoydWashington Supreme Court · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 2024