Legal Opinion

State v. Ralph Vernon G.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 27, 1998No. 15467-0-IIIPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

When the State amends an information the day before the date set for trial, adding new charges of sexual abuse involving additional victims, and the record shows the State was aware of the factual basis for the charges for nearly a month, is a defendant’s right to a speedy trial violated if the defendant must agree to a continuance beyond the speedy trial date to enable defense counsel to prepare to meet the new charges? We decide this violates the speedy trial provisions of CrR 3.3 and reverse.

We also decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring Ralph G. to proceed with…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. RyanWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. MichielliWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. United States v. Milton Edward BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  5. State v. PriceWashington Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Gausvik v. PerezDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2002
  2. State v. RaschkaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. State v. RaschkaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. Gausvik v. PerezDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2002
  5. State v. DeSantiagoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001

8 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