Case Summary: The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Knapstad (107 Wn.2d 346, 1986) significantly shaped the procedures surrounding pretrial dismissals of criminal charges for insufficiency of evidence in Washington State. The case involved Douglas W. Knapstad, who was charged with possession of a controlled substance—specifically, marijuana—with the intent to manufacture or deliver, under RCW 69.50.401(a)(1). However, the trial court dismissed the charges prior to trial, concluding that the State lacked sufficient evidence to support a conviction. The decision to dismiss was upheld by the Court of Appeals, leading to a landmark ruling by the Washington Supreme Court.

Key Facts:

• The police found approximately 160 grams of marijuana in a residence associated with Knapstad, based on information provided by a confidential informant.
• Knapstad moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that without the informant’s testimony, the State could not prove possession.
• The trial court agreed, determining that the evidence presented, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was insufficient to establish that Knapstad had knowledge or control over the marijuana.

Supreme Court Ruling: The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating that trial courts have the inherent authority to dismiss criminal charges before trial if it is apparent that the State lacks sufficient evidence to support a conviction. The Court highlighted that fairness and judicial efficiency necessitate a procedure that allows for pretrial dismissals in cases where evidence is clearly insufficient.

Impact and Clarification of Procedures: The Knapstad ruling provided clear guidance on the procedure for pretrial dismissals:

1. Filing the Motion: A defendant can file a pretrial motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence, supported by a sworn affidavit.
2. State’s Response: The State must respond with an affidavit or evidence that specifically disputes the defendant’s claims.
3. Court’s Determination: If the facts are undisputed and do not support a prima facie case of guilt, the court may dismiss the charges without prejudice.
4. No Bar to Subsequent Prosecution: A dismissal under this procedure does not prevent the State from refiling charges if additional evidence is found.

Conclusion: The Knapstad decision remains a pivotal case in Washington law, ensuring that defendants are not subjected to trial on charges that lack sufficient legal basis. The procedures established by this ruling continue to be a critical aspect of criminal law practice in the state, balancing the interests of justice with the need for judicial efficiency.

For more detailed information, you can view the full case here.

Review our client resources here

Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.  If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com