CrR 3.3 Interpretation
In State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 557 P.2d 847 (1976) the prosecutor filed informations charging both defendants with grand larceny and securities fraud, but the defendants were not promptly arraigned. Id. at 871.
The trial court rejected the defendants' motions to dismiss under the belief that the only applicable date for calculating time for trial was the date of first appearance before the court. Id.
The Court disagreed, stating that the intent and spirit of the criminal rules required that if the defendant was amenable to process, he or she must be brought to trial "within the time specified in CrR 3.3, after the information or indictment is filed." Id. at 877.
If a long period of delay has occurred between filing and bringing the defendant to court, "through no fault or connivance of the defendant," the gap in CrR 3.3 must be filled by the court. Id. at 872.