# State v. Campbell

> Washington Supreme Court · December 28, 1984 · 103 Wash. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623668

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Charles R. Campbell, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 28, 1984
- **Citations:** 103 Wash. 2d 1; 691 P.2d 929
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dolliver
- **Judges:** Dimmick, Rosellini, Utter, Dolliver
- **Cited by:** 257 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623668

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- concluding that defendant could not show prejudice because of defense counsel’s continuance over his objections when continuance ensured more effective representation and fair trial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623668. Public record. Not legal advice.