State of Washington v. Rafaelito Agustin, 34579-3

16-year-old Rafaelito Agustin was arrested after officers saw marijuana-smoking paraphernalia (a soda can with burned residue), found a small amount of marijuana in his shirt (later suppressed), and observed signs of alcohol use; a portable breath test showed .065 and Agustin admitted to drinking and smoking.
Charged with minor possession/consumption of alcohol and underage possession of marijuana.
After a CrR 3.5 hearing the juvenile court suppressed the marijuana from his pocket, the breath test results, and his incriminating statements, but found the soda-can smoking device and an empty malt liquor can admissible.
The prosecutor concluded remaining admissible evidence was insufficient, filed an ex parte written CrR 8.3(a) motion to dismiss, and notified defense counsel.
At the scheduled fact-finding hearing the court refused to sign the dismissal, ordered the State to proceed, heard the evidence, convicted Agustin of underage possession of marijuana (acquitting on the alcohol charge), and imposed 12 months’ community supervision.
On appeal the court examined whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State’s dismissal motion in light of constitutional separation of powers; it reversed and directed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Agustin)	Held
May a trial court deny a prosecutor's written motion to dismiss because the court believes admissible evidence is sufficient to convict?	The court may decide once charges are filed and can deny dismissal; CrR 8.3(a) gives the court discretion.	Court refusal to dismiss usurped executive charging discretion and violated separation of powers.	A court may deny a prosecutor's dismissal only when the prosecutor offers an inappropriate reason; belief that admissible evidence is insufficient is an appropriate reason — denial here violated separation of powers and requires dismissal.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict Agustin of underage possession of marijuana after suppression rulings?	The State proceeded and obtained a conviction.	Agustin argued insufficient admissible evidence supported conviction.	Court reversed the conviction because the trial court should have granted the prosecutor's good-faith dismissal motion; remanded with directions to dismiss.

State v. Bible, 77 Wn. App. 470 (trial court abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of CrR 8.3 motion)
State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294 (prosecutor's charging decisions generally not subject to judicial review)
State v. Korum, 157 Wn.2d 614 (prosecutorial charging discretion and plea negotiations)
State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884 (charging discretion is integral to checks and balances; limits on judicial interference)
State v. Dixon, 114 Wn.2d 857 (courts should not usurp prosecutor judgment on sufficiency/delay except when clearly unwarranted)
Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (federal Rule 48(a) and limited judicial role in vetoing government dismissals)
United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (judicial denial of government dismissal cannot usurp executive's good-faith prosecutorial discretion)