CHAPTER 11

DISMISSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

§ 11.01 Dismissal in the Interests of Justice

§ 11.01

Dismissal in the Interests of Justice

Rule 48(b)(2) allows a judge to dismiss any case, with or without prejudice, on the broadly discretionary ground that "such dismissal will serve the ends of justice and the effective administration of the court's business." The rule is meant in part as a housekeeping device, to get rid of de minimis charges,{1} and to clear backlogged cases (even if there has been no violation of the speedy trial guidelines).{2}

But it is not restricted to these situations, nor does a Rule 48(b) dismissal require constitutional reasons.{3} A judge can therefore dismiss in the interests of justice as a sanction for police misconduct for which the constitution provides only a lesser remedy (such as suppression) or no remedy at all (e.g., where gross police misconduct produces no incriminating evidence).{4}

Prosecutorial misconduct can also warrant dismissal under the rule: a state's attorney's attempt to avoid scheduling orders warrants dismissal with prejudice in the interests of justice,{5} and other misconduct can have the same consequence. For example, even if a case is not dismissable as of right under the stringent standards for selective and vindictive prosecutions,{6} elements of selectivity or vindictiveness may warrant dismissal under the rule.

A motion to dismiss in the interests of justice is also appropriate in "sympathy cases," where the facts show technical guilt together with substantial mitigating circumstances; or where a mandatory minimum sentence which would have to be imposed on conviction would be unjust on the particular facts.{7}

ENDNOTES

1. V.R.Cr.P. 48(b), Reporter's Notes.

2. V.R.Cr.P. 48(b), Reporter's Notes; State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 436, 440 (1984).

3. V.R.Cr.P. 48(b), Reporter's Notes to the 1989 Amendment.

4. Rule 48(b)'s authority to dismiss is a codification of inherent judicial powers. See V.R.Cr.P. 48(b), Reporter's Notes to the 1989 Amendment (citing United States v. Furey, 514 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1976); and C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 814, at 209 (1982)).

5. State v. Jones, 157 Vt. 553 (1991).

6. See chapter 15, infra.

7. Dismissal in the interests of justice may be appropriate even after conviction. See State v. Kimber, No. 84-309 (Vt. July 11, 1986) (unpublished) (raised but not decided).