state response motion to dismiss speedy trial

State response motion to dismiss speedy trial trial#

517 (1981) (delay of six months between arrest and murder trial was not presumptively prejudicial) but see State v. 1 (1981) (delay of eleven months between issuance of arrest warrant and murder trial was not presumptively prejudicial) see also State v. 387 (1985) (delay of fourteen months between arrest and murder trial was prima facie unreasonable requiring state to justify delay) State v. There is not a clear rule on precisely what length of delay is “presumed” to be prejudicial for example, one prior case has found 14 months was a presumptively prejudicial delay, while another case has found that 11 months was not.

This factor is not determinative on its own, but the court will not go on to consider the other three factors listed below unless the length of the delay itself is “presumptively prejudicial.” Barker v. The court weighs the following four factors in comparing the conduct of the prosecution and defense: 647 (1992) (based on facts in this case, delay of eight and one-half years between defendant’s indictment and his arrest violated his right to a speedy trial) State v. 514 (1992) (based on facts in this case, delay of five years did not violate right to speedy trial) Doggett v. In determining whether a defendant has been deprived of a speedy trial, the burden of proof is initially with the defendant to show a prima facie case that substantial delay was caused by the “neglect or willfulness of the prosecution” – if the defendant makes that showing, then the burden shifts to the state to justify the reason for the delay. 319, 328-29 (2009) (when evidentiary hearing is required for a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order – likely applies to due process challenges as well).īalancing Test to Determine a Speedy Trial (6 th Amendment) Violation If a hearing on the motion was required, then the court is also required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when issuing a ruling granting or denying the motion. If there is no objection, the evidence may consist of statements of counsel however, the North Carolina courts have expressed that the better practice is to present evidence and develop the record through affidavits or testimony.

488, 495 (1976) (failure to hold hearing not error absent defense request). 338, 346-47 (1984), but a defendant must specifically request a hearing. When there are contested issues of fact regarding a motion to dismiss, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, State v. 416, 418 (1972) (speedy trial claim cannot be raised for first time on appeal). 558, 568-69 (1991) (making motion for speedy trial at trial rendered the issue a mere formality) see also State v. 15A-954(c) states that a defendant may make a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial “at any time ” however, to avoid the risk of waiver, the motion is typically made before trial. 15A-954(a)(3), dismissal for denial of speedy trial). 293, 294 (1984) (court cites this statutory provision as well as G.S. 15A-954(a)(3) and (4), which provides that the court must dismiss the charges in a criminal pleading if the defendant has been denied a speedy trial, or if another violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights has caused him irreparable prejudice. Procedure for Resolving an Alleged Speedy Trial (6 th Amendment) or Due Process (5 th/14 th Amendment) ViolationĪ motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation or untimely prosecution may be brought under G.S.

State response motion to dismiss speedy trial