holding that the court may grant defense counsel’s motion for a continuance over defendant’s objection if necessary “in the administration of justice” for pretrial preparation
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court may grant defense counsel’s motion for a continuance over defendant’s objection if necessary “in the administration of justice” for pretrial preparation
- holding that trial court properly granted defense counsel’s request for a continuance, even over defendant’s objection, to allow more time to prepare for trial and ensure effective representation and a fair trial
- holding no abuse of discretion when granting defense counsel’s request for a continuance over defendant’s objection because the continuance was necessary for defense counsel to effectively represent the defendant given the case’s complexity and length
- allowing continuance over defendant’s objection where “Campbell’s counsel could neither effectively represent him nor ensure that he received his constitutional right to a fair trial within 60 days of arraignment, ‘through no fault of their own but because of the complexity and length of this case.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dolliver, J.
(concurring in the concurrence and dissent) — I concur with the views expressed by Justice Utter. I write, however, because of my concern over the treatment by the majority of the question as to whether the death penalty is per se unconstitutional under Const. art. 1, § 14: "Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted."
Although the majority states the issue is "raised implicitly", majority at 31, there is no contention by defendant, either in his brief or oral argument, that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se. The issue was not discussed by the State nor were briefs from amicus curiae requested. Under these circumstances, it seems to me inappropriate for a matter of this significance to be addressed by the court. See State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664, 711 , 683 P.2d 571 (1984) (Dolliver, J., concurring in the result).
Utter, J., concurs with Dolliver, J.