State Of Washington v. Anthony Eloy Perez, 48117-1

Background

Perez was charged with second-degree child rape and related enhancement and additional charges; police and prosecutors had cell phones and DNA evidence by March 17, 2015.
Defense requested discovery (May 15) and an omnibus order (June 1) required the State to produce specified forensic and electronic evidence by June 15.
The State failed to timely produce much of the discovery: bodycam video delayed until July 1, Detective Beall’s report and DNA report provided July 23 (disks referenced in the report were never provided), and updated DNA five working days before trial; witness disclosures came 4 working days before trial and 43 days after the omnibus deadline.
Perez moved to dismiss for governmental misconduct under CrR 8.3(b), arguing the delays forced him to choose between a speedy trial and adequate preparation.
The trial court found prosecutorial misconduct and bad faith, concluded the delay prejudiced Perez’s right to counsel and speedy trial, and dismissed all charges under CrR 8.3(b).
The State appealed, arguing some findings lacked substantial evidence and that the trial court erred by not considering lesser sanctions before dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perez)	Held
Whether findings that the State was not thorough/diligent (FFs 18,19) are supported by substantial evidence	Findings lack substantial evidence; State timely provided most material and excuses (e.g., prosecutor in trial) justify delay	Delays and missed deadlines (omnibus order) show lack of diligence and withheld discovery prejudiced defense	Majority: Substantial evidence supports FFs 18 and 19; trial court did not abuse discretion on those findings
Whether finding that State "ignored" case (FF 20) is supported by substantial evidence	Challenge FF 20 as unsupported	FF 20 consistent with pattern of delay and failures	Court declined to review FF 20 because other findings suffice to support governmental misconduct conclusion
Whether cell phone and DNA materials were "crucial" and whether State provided nonprotected disk materials	State contends all obtainable phone info was provided before July 6 and disputes that undisclosed items were crucial	Defense: cell phone contents and DNA were critical to defense of enhancement and to show intercourse; some materials were never provided	Court treated contested conclusions as findings, concluded State did not show those findings were incorrect; evidence supports that the materials were crucial and some were not produced
Whether trial court erred by dismissing without considering lesser sanctions	Dismissal was appropriate because misconduct prejudiced defendant; trial court’s remedy was within discretion	Dismissal warranted due to forced choice between speedy trial and adequate preparation	Court: Agreed misconduct existed but reversed dismissal because trial court failed to consider alternative sanctions before imposing extraordinary remedy; remanded to consider lesser remedies

Key Cases Cited

State v. Teems, 89 Wn. App. 385 (trial court should use Teems test for governmental misconduct)
State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229 (elements for dismissal under CrR 8.3(b): governmental misconduct and prejudice)
State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822 (governmental misconduct need not be dishonest; mismanagement suffices)
State v. Sommerville, 111 Wn.2d 524 (standard for substantial evidence review of findings)
State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118 (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
State v. Wilson, 149 Wn.2d 1 (dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) is extraordinary; court should consider alternative sanctions)
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810 (prejudice includes counsel’s opportunity to prepare)
State v. Marcum, 24 Wn. App. 441 (treat facts stated in conclusions of law as findings of fact)