KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, WEST DIVISION

 

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                         )

                                                                        )           No. C438381

                                    plaintiff,                        )

                                                                        )           DEFENDANT’S SECOND

            v.                                                         )           SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO

                                                                        )           DISMISS COMPLAINT

ROGER W. KNIGHT,                                    )

                                                                        )

                                    defendant.                    )

____________________________________)

 

MOTION

            Comes now ROGER W. KNIGHT, defendant, to supplement his Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

SUPPLEMENT

            Mr. Knight moved for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel.  Subsequent to this motion, the King County Prosecutor’s office, in the case of State v. Knight, King County District Court, South Division No. CQ54646KC, moved to dismiss the charge and the Court granted Mr. Knight’s request that the dismissal be with prejudice.  Please see Second Declaration of Roger W. Knight in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Knight Declaration II) and its attached Exhibit.

            The Superior Court required that Mercer Island prove either certified mail service or personal service and Mercer Island had a full and fair opportunity to do so upon remand.  Therefore, the King County Prosecutor’s theory of the case was destined to ultimate failure even if they could establish certified mail service.

            However, their admission that they cannot establish certified mail service proves the purposes of collateral estoppel as an element of double jeopardy in criminal cases.  If Mercer Island did not like its chances of proving the element deemed required by the Superior Court for any proving any charge of DWLS based on a child support suspension, notice, then there is a great likelihood that any subsequent prosecuting authority will draw the same conclusion when looking at the same evidence.  The King County Prosecutor’s office should have performed this necessary investigation before bringing criminal charges against Mr. Knight and Mr. Knight should not have been required to appear and defend these subsequent charges.  Once a defendant in a criminal case successfully defends against the charge, either by jury or bench trial acquittal, or through dismissal with prejudice not appealed, no element of such crime as charged should hang like a Sword of Damocles over the successful defendant for the balance of any statute of limitations that would apply to any additional criminal charge requiring proof of said element.

            With the charge in South Division dismissed with prejudice, and as it is brought by the same prosecutor’s office representing the same sovereign, collateral estoppel bars this present prosecution in this case.

CONCLUSION

            For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss should be granted and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

            Respectfully submitted this 19th day of January, 2004.

 

                                                                        __________________________

                                                                        Roger W. Knight, pro se

If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page.  Click CQ54646KC to get to the main page for this case.  Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.