State of Washington v. Daniel Obadiah Batsell, 33340-0

Background

Daniel Batsell was arrested after officers responded to a suspicious-conditions call at a residence; a broken meth pipe and a small bag of meth on a keychain with car keys were found on him.
Batsell told defense counsel the keys and associated car belonged to a friend ("Joshua" or Ferris); counsel repeatedly sought help locating that witness and the car owner.
The prosecutor provided Officer Cobb’s report earlier in the case; the day before trial the prosecutor located and promptly disclosed a different report by Officer Leininger showing Joshua Ferris was at the house, appeared high, and had exhibited paranoid behavior.
The morning of trial defense counsel moved to dismiss (or continue) on Brady grounds, asserting the Leininger report was exculpatory and its late production prejudiced defense preparation.
The trial court found a Brady violation and dismissed the charge; the State moved for reconsideration (CR 59), which was denied, and the State appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Batsell)	Held
Was the trial court's pretrial dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) reviewable after a timely CR 59 motion?	Timely reconsideration motion extends appeal deadline and permits review of underlying dismissal.	Reconsideration in criminal cases is improper and the appeal should not reach the dismissal.	The appeal presents the dismissal for review; timely motion for reconsideration extended the appeal period and review is allowed.
Whether suppression of Officer Leininger’s report constituted a Brady violation requiring dismissal.	No Brady violation warranting dismissal; prosecutor did not act in bad faith and promptly disclosed once alerted.	The late disclosure prejudiced defense; report was exculpatory or would lead to exculpatory evidence.	Court did not decide definitively whether Brady occurred but held dismissal was an abuse of discretion even if Brady violation occurred; continuance would have been the appropriate remedy.
Proper remedy for late disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence.	Continuance or other curative measures would have cured any prejudice; dismissal is an extreme last resort.	Dismissal appropriate because defense was prejudiced at a crucial stage and compelled to choose between rights.	Dismissal was improper absent findings under Price/Woods test; continuance should have been considered.
Whether State acted with due diligence and whether withheld facts forced choice between speedy trial and adequate preparation (Price/Woods standard).	The State acted promptly once alerted; the record does not show failure of due diligence or that defendant was forced to choose between rights.	Late disclosure left inadequate time to prepare and prejudiced defense.	The trial court did not apply the Price/Woods standard; record does not establish lack of due diligence or that defendant was forced into an untenable choice.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561 (2001) (dismissal requires showing prosecution lacked due diligence and late withholding forced choice between rights)
State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647 (2003) (defendant must prove governmental misconduct and prejudice by preponderance to obtain dismissal)
United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (dismissal for Brady is last-resort remedy; new trial or curative measures preferred)
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810 (1980) (articulated the choice-of-rights framework referenced in dismissal analysis)