State v. Lidge

(dissenting) — I agree with the analysis of the Court of Appeals that preaccusatorial delay violated defendant Eskridge's due process rights and that his conviction must be reversed and the case dismissed. State v. Lidge, 49 Wn. App. 311, 317-21, 742 P.2d 741 (1987). Therefore, I dissent.

My review of the record convinces me that the Court of Appeals was correct when it stated:

We conclude that the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that the delay was neither intentional nor negligent. First, Walton's testimony, which was based solely on her review of the file, did no more…