Delayed and Deferred Prosecution of DUI Crimes in Washington
People charged with DUI offenses are often tried shortly after their arrests. In some instances, however, a person may be able to defer his or her prosecution to take part in a treatment or rehabilitation program. People who successfully complete such programs are often able to have their DUI charges dismissed, but they must comply with the conditions imposed by the law, and if they do not, their deferred prosecution may be revoked. The revocation of deferred prosecution was the topic of a recent Washington opinion. If you are accused of committing a DUI offense, it is smart to speak to a Washington criminal defense lawyer to evaluate your possible options.
Waiting a Year for a Key Piece of Cvidence
That year-long delay is not uncommon in cases of suspected drinking and driving involving a car accident on a Washington state road. Before filing charges, prosecutors generally wait until they receive all available evidence, including the toxicology report. But the Washington State Patrol handles all statewide blood testing at its crime lab. And for years now, WSP has faced a huge test backlog. So, it can be around a year before the prosecutor gets the report on a particular case. WSP says it is working on the backlog and hope to bring the toxicology report wait down to 60-90 days, which is what the waiting period was a decade ago.
Until then, you might be stuck with a suspended driver’s license and suspected by the public of causing serious injury due to driving under the influence. Then there is the uncertainty of knowing if you will have to go to jail or go through other punishments and have a DUI on your record.
While there might not be much you can do about the toxicology report, an experienced defense attorney can help you avoid unnecessary delays and errors.
Washington Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial in a DUI Case
The state and federal constitutions offer numerous rights and protections to criminal defendants, including the right to a speedy trial. These apply to all Pierce County and Tacoma DUI cases. Thus, if a criminal defendant is subjected to undue delays during the pendency of their trial, they may be able to successfully advocate for dismissal of the charges against them, regardless of the strength of the prosecution’s case. Recently, a Washington court discussed the evidence a defendant must produce to demonstrate their speedy trial rights have been violated in a matter in which the defendant was charged with DUI and other crimes. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to contact a Washington criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights.
Facts of the Case
It is alleged that the defendant was charged with numerous crimes, including driving while under the influence following a police chase. He was incarcerated during the pendency of his trial for a total of 18 months. He was subsequently convicted, after which he sought an appeal, arguing that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial when it granted multiple continuances in spite of his objections.
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The appellate court was not persuaded by the defendant’s reasoning and rejected his appeal. The analysis the courts conduct to determine if a defendant’s speedy trial rights have been violated are largely the same under both the state and federal constitutions. Specifically, the courts employ the Barker test, which is fact-specific and depends on the unique circumstances of the case.
The Barker test requires the courts to weigh the conduct of both the defendant and the prosecution and is mindful of the fact that to some degree, delays prior to trial are both justified and inevitable. Thus, a defendant must show a delay was presumptively prejudicial before the court will examine the delay under the Barker test. If a defendant meets this threshold, the courts will look at numerous factors to determine whether the delay constitutes a violation, including how long the delay lasted, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant exerted his speedy trial rights, and if so, to what extent, and whether the delay was prejudicial to the defendant.
In the subject case, the court found that the 18 month delay was sufficient to trigger the Barker test. When it conducted the analysis, though, it found that the factors did not weigh in the defendant’s favor. Thus, it affirmed his conviction.
Another Example
In a case from 2012, the defendant was reportedly charged with DUI and reckless driving. He petitioned the court for deferred prosecution in October 2013. The court granted his petition and entered an order approving a two-year treatment plan and deferring the prosecution of the matter for five years. The order also dictated that the defendant had to totally abstain from the use of alcohol or illicit drugs for the duration of the deferred prosecution and abide by the law.
Allegedly, in January 2018, the State moved to revoke the defendant’s deferred prosecution on the grounds that he was charged with hit and run, reckless endangerment, and DUI. The trial court entered an order granting the petition, but the defendant appealed, and the trial court’s ruling was ultimately reversed. The State then petitioned the court of appeals for discretionary review.
Deferred Prosecution Under Washington Law
On review, the appellate court reversed the lower court ruling and affirmed the trial court ruling revoking the defendant’s deferred prosecution. The State argued that the applicable laws demonstrated that the legislature intended for district courts to have the authority to revoke deferred prosecution at any point during the five-year time prior to dismissal. The defendant argued, however, that the statute was ambiguous and, therefore, should be interpreted in his favor, concluding that the deferred prosecution could only be revoked during his two-year treatment period.
The court agreed with the State, rejecting the defendant’s reasoning. The court stated that the defendant’s interpretation of the law would lead to absurd outcomes, leaving the courts powerless to impose penalties for violations of deferred prosecution orders that happened outside of the treatment period but prior to dismissal. The court explained that the statute provided that if a petitioner is then convicted of a similar offense during the time he or she is in a deferred prosecution program, the court may remove the matter from the deferred prosecution file. Thus, the court revoked the defendant’s deferred prosecution.
Speak to a Trusted Washington Criminal Defense Attorney
People who are convicted of DUI offenses often face both criminal and civil penalties, but in some instances, they may be able to take measures to have their charges dismissed. If you are accused of a DUI crime, you should speak to an attorney as soon as possible. The trusted DUI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Smith & White are adept at helping people charged with crimes defend their rights, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us through our online form or by calling (253) 544-3617 to set up a conference.