Opinion

State v. Espeland

  • 13 Wash. App. 849
  • 537 P.2d 1041
  • 1975 Wash. App. LEXIS 1428
Court
Court of Appeals of Washington
Filed
Jul 7, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Green
On the bench
Munson, Green, McInturff
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.2%

The opinion

Green, J.

(concurring) — I concur because the mandatory requirements of CrR 3.3 as strictly interpreted in State v. Williams, 85 Wn.2d 29, 32 , 530 P.2d 225 (1975), seem to require this result. However, I have difficulty reconciling the strict application of the mandatory language of this rule in an area where a constitutional right to speedy trial has not been shown to be impaired with the apparent leniency in the application of what appears to be mandatory language in the civil rules. See Moore v. Burdman, 84 Wn.2d 408 , 526 *855 P.2d 893 (1974); Malott v. Randall, 83 Wh.2d 259, 517 P.2d 605 (1974); Myers v. Harris, 82 Wn.2d 152 , 509 P.2d 656 (1973); O’Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589 , 458 P.2d 154 (1969).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.