State v. MacDonald, 346 P.3d 748

In 1978 Arlene Roberts was found murdered; the case went cold until 2010 when Detective Scott Tompkins matched latent prints to Ronald MacDonald and initiated the prosecution.
MacDonald pleaded guilty by Alford plea to second-degree manslaughter pursuant to a plea agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to recommend a 5-year suspended sentence with 16 months’ confinement.
At sentencing Detective Tompkins, who led the investigation and had been involved in plea discussions, sought to speak on behalf of the deceased victim and urged the court to impose the maximum sentence, presenting graphic photos and undermining the defense points supporting the plea.
The trial court imposed the maximum sentence; MacDonald moved to withdraw his plea alleging the State breached the plea agreement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Washington Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding Tompkins acted as a substantial arm of the prosecution and his advocacy breached the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an investigating officer may make sentencing remarks that contradict a prosecutor’s plea recommendation	MacDonald: IO advocacy contrary to plea breaches the State’s contractual and due process obligations	State: Victim-rights statutes and constitution permit an IO (as victim representative) to speak for a deceased victim when no survivors exist	Held: IOs who function as substantial arms of the prosecution may not undermine plea agreements; Tompkins’ comments breached the plea agreement
Whether crime victims’ statutory and constitutional rights allow the State to authorize an IO to speak against a plea agreement	MacDonald: Victim-rights cannot override defendant’s federal/state due process and plea-contract protections	State: Article I, §35 and RCW provisions allow prosecutor to identify a representative to exercise victim rights, especially when no survivors exist	Held: Victims’ rights statutes and amendment do not supersede due process here; RCW 9.94A.500 does not permit an IO acting as victim’s advocate to undermine a plea bargain
Proper remedy for a breached plea agreement	MacDonald: Entitled to rescind plea or specific performance	State: (Implicit) contend no breach so no remedy needed	Held: Defendant may elect to withdraw the plea or seek specific performance (new sentencing hearing with prosecutor bound to recommend the agreed term)

State v. Sanchez, 146 Wn.2d 339 (recognizing that investigating officers who function as arms of the prosecution cannot undercut plea agreements)
State v. Sledge, 133 Wn.2d 828 (prosecutor must adhere to plea terms; plea agreements treated with heightened fairness and due process concerns)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutorial breach of plea agreements implicates due process; harmless-error review inappropriate)
State v. Barber, 170 Wn.2d 854 (remedies for breached plea agreements: withdrawal or specific performance)
State v. Tourtellotte, 88 Wn.2d 579 (breach of plea undermines waiver of constitutional rights and fairness of system)
State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570 (victims’ rights must be harmonized with defendants’ constitutional rights)