Background
Brittany Adams was charged with forgery and first-degree theft and arraigned on May 9, 2023. Because she was not in custody, Washington’s 90-day time-for-trial period was set to expire on August 7. The Franklin County Office of Public Defense was provisionally appointed but soon reported that every attorney had reached applicable caseload limits.
Adams appeared without counsel at hearings in June and August. The trial court continued the trial, ultimately finding good cause based on what it described as an emergency public-defense crisis. Counsel appeared after the 90-day period had expired. The State initially dismissed the case without prejudice, then refiled the same charges. Adams was convicted in a stipulated-facts bench trial after the superior court denied her time-for-trial motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that, on this record, the systemic shortage of public-defense attorneys caused by recurring caseload limits was not an unforeseen or unavoidable circumstance that justified excluding time under CrR 3.3(e)(8).
The court distinguished discrete, unexpected unavailability of a particular attorney—such as illness, an ethical withdrawal, or a conflicting trial—from a recurring institutional shortage. The latter more closely resembles court congestion or routine laboratory backlogs. The record contained only conclusory statements about the shortage and did not establish its scope, timing, cause, remedial efforts, or a genuine emergency. Because the 90-day period expired without a valid exclusion, CrR 3.3 required dismissal with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A systemic public-defender shortage does not itself establish good cause to extend the criminal time-for-trial deadline.
- Courts must have a detailed record showing why an institutional problem was unforeseen or unavoidable and what efforts were made to address it.
- Once the applicable time-for-trial period expires without a lawful basis for exclusion, the charges must be dismissed with prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Washington’s narrow approach to CrR 3.3 continuances to public-defense capacity shortages. It recognizes that a specific lawyer’s unexpected unavailability may warrant a delay, but treats predictable, systemic capacity problems differently.
For prosecutors, defense offices, and trial courts, the opinion underscores that generalized references to caseload limits or a staffing crisis will not support an exclusion of time. A failure to establish a valid basis before the deadline expires can bar reprosecution.