Legal Opinion

State v. Austin

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 2, 2003No. 27946-1-IIPublished

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

This case raises the question of what constitutes sufficient “due diligence” in bringing a defendant before the court for arraignment so as to avoid application of the Striker1 rule. During a police investigation, Leroy F. Austin provided the police with the name and telephone number of a contact person who he alleged could provide his current address. The State later filed a criminal charge against Austin and issued a warrant for his arrest, but it made no attempt to determine Austin’s address or to otherwise advise him of the charges. We hold that under these circumstances the State failed…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. MendezWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. MendezWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. StrikerWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. PetersonWashington Supreme Court · 1978

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API