In Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-114857, 177 Ariz. 337, 339, 868 P.2d 350, 352 (App. 1993) the held that the procedures followed in dismissing adult criminal prosecutions should also apply in juvenile cases. That is, dismissal of a prosecution shall be without prejudice to the state commencing another prosecution unless the court finds that the "interests of justice" require that the dismissal be with prejudice. Id. at 338-39, 868 P.2d at 351-52; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.6(d). In JV-114857, the court noted that under the rules of the juvenile court, the court could dismiss a case either with or without prejudice if it found that the time limits of juvenile speedy justice were violated. JV-114857 at 338, 868 P.2d at 351 (citing former Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 6.1(j), currently Rule 18(C)). In the absence of a speedy trial violation, a dismissal with prejudice would only be justified if Juvenile could demonstrate that the state delayed the case for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage over him or to harass him, and if he could show that he actually suffered prejudice as a result of the state's conduct. Id. at 339, 868 P.2d at 352. Indeed, the most important consideration as to whether a dismissal should be with or without prejudice is whether a delay will result in prejudice to the accused. State v. Gilbert, 172 Ariz. 402, 404, 837 P.2d 1137, 1139 (App. 1991). The type of harm that will justify dismissal with prejudice is a harm that would actually impair the accused's ability to defend against the charges. Id. at 405, 837 P.2d at 1140.