Case Title: Huffman v. State

Citation: 502 N.E.2d 906

Docket Number: 1284S478

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1987-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
502 N.E.2d 906 (1987)
Robert Duane HUFFMAN, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 1284S478.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
January 21, 1987.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1987.
Garry W. Miracle, Anderson, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Joseph N. Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DICKSON, Justice.
In this direct appeal, defendant's issues include the contention that he was entitled to discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C) due to the State's failure to bring him to trial within one year following his arrest.
Criminal Rule 4(C) provides:
The provisions of Criminal Rule 4(A) regarding said "timely motion for continuance" state:
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to each accused person "the right to a speedy and public trial." Art. 1, § 12 of the Constitution of Indiana demands that justice shall be administered "speedily, and without delay." We recognized in Gill v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 160, 368 N.E.2d 1159, 1161:
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Defendant was arrested for the crimes at issue on August 6, 1982. Without any delay caused by defendant, his trial was set for June 16, 1983. Trial did not occur as scheduled, and on June 20, 1983, the State filed a written "request for trial setting and showing court's congestion," which was not ruled upon until September 29, 1983. On August 25, 1983, the defendant filed a motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C), which was denied.
On September 29, 1983, the trial court made the following nunc pro tunc entry for June 20, 1983:
The following day, September 30, 1983, the trial court made a further nunc pro tunc entry as of September 1, 1983, which provided in pertinent part:
Defendant's trial thereafter commenced on October 18, 1983.
The instant case is unlike those in which, within the time limit prescribed by the rule, the trial court determines that court calendar congestion compels the setting of a trial date promptly beyond the time limit. See, Dudley v. State (1985), *908 Ind., 480 N.E.2d 881; Caine v. State (1975), 163 Ind. App. 381, 324 N.E.2d 525; Harris v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 464, 269 N.E.2d 537. Nor is this a case in which the defendant failed to object to the timely setting of a trial which would occur beyond the limit. See Bryant v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 172, 301 N.E.2d 179; Utterback v. State (1974), 261 Ind. 685, 310 N.E.2d 552. A defendant is not required to take affirmative action to obtain a trial date within the one-year period set by the rule. State ex rel Back v. Starke Circuit Court (1979), 271 Ind. 82, 390 N.E.2d 643, 645; State ex rel Wickliffe v. Marion Criminal Court (1975), 263 Ind. 219, 328 N.E.2d 420. But he does have a duty to alert the court when a trial date has been established beyond the proscribed limits. State ex rel O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 209.
While the express language of the rule requires that, in order for the congested court calendar exception to apply, the prosecutor must file a timely motion, our case law has recognized that the continuance may be at the instance of the trial judge and not the prosecutor.
Harris, supra, 256 Ind. at 466, 269 N.E.2d  at 539, as quoted with approval in Caine, supra, 163 Ind. App. at 387, 324 N.E.2d  at 529.
In the case before us, the salient facts are clear. The State did not act to bring the defendant to trial within the required one year period. During this time, no delay was attributable to the defendant. The State failed to file any motion for continuance pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(A), (C), before the June 16 trial date, which would have been within the prescribed time limit. The one-year period expired August 7, 1983. Prior to that time, the trial court had not made any determination regarding congestion of court calendar. The date of the trial which finally occurred, over defendant's objection, was not set until September 30, long after the expiration of the time limit.
This case confronts this Court with an extremely unpleasant but compelling responsibility. We realize that the defendant was ultimately convicted following an arduous jury trial. Such cases extract an enormous personal toll from the witnesses, jurors, and others participating. Resulting costs are significant and burden our taxpayers, and the time devoted to such trials and subsequent proceedings operate to delay the resolution of other pending controversies. It is with extreme reluctance that we must consider setting aside the defendant's conviction, thus rendering futile the results of the jury trial which found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In reviewing the statutory predecessor to our present Criminal Rule 4(C), this Court instructed in Zehrlaut v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 175, 184, 102 N.E.2d 203, 207:
Therefore, because of the State's failure to bring the defendant to trial within one year, or to otherwise qualify under the alternative provided in the rule, we are compelled to apply the provisions of Criminal Rule 4(C).
Judgment is reversed and this cause remanded to the trial court with instructions *909 to grant defendant's motion for discharge. Because the record indicates that charges against this defendant were pending regarding other unrelated criminal activity, the status of said matters may affect whether defendant is to be released from custody.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.
DeBRULER, J., concurs with opinion in which SHEPARD, J., concurs.
GIVAN, C.J., dissents with opinion in which PIVARNIK, J., concurs.
DeBRULER, Justice  concurring.
A nunc pro tunc entry is "an entry made now of something which was actually previously done, to have effect as of the former date." Perkins v. Hayward (1892), 132 Ind. 95, 31 N.E. 670. The office of such an entry is to make the record reflect the character, terms, and conditions of true action taken. Cook v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 234, 37 N.E.2d 63. Here, there never was an action taken or event recorded, even if one chooses to credit the first nunc pro tunc entry for June 20, 1983, which evidences such a congested court calendar, as would demonstrate that there was not sufficient time to try appellant before the expiration of the early trial time frame in August. Certainly the fact that the court ran other trials during the remaining part of that time frame does not so demonstrate. Since any court's calendar can be filled constantly with legitimate court matters, the prioritizing purpose of Criminal Rule 4, would be lost entirely if that demonstration were deemed sufficient. The trial court's second nunc pro tunc entry recognizes this purpose of the rule when it states that two of the three intervening trials were of murder charges. I know of no separate legal requirement that murder charges be given precedence over the serious felony charges presented by this case. Furthermore, there is no attempt to justify the running of the third trial which is not characterized in the order, rather than appellant's trial. All court rules exist and are enforced at a cost, since they are applied by a human institution. Appellant's discharge here is such a cost.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.
GIVAN, Chief Justice  dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. As set out in the majority opinion, appellant was arrested on August 6, 1982. The case was originally set for trial for June 16, 1983; however, the trial did not occur at that time. On June 20, 1983, the prosecuting attorney filed his written "Request for Trial Setting and Showing Court's Congestion." All of this occurred well before the one year period expired from the date of arrest. The action of the prosecuting attorney complied with Ind.R.Cr.P. 4(C).
In filing for a request for a trial setting and showing the court's congestion, there is no requirement that the court take action on the prosecuting attorney's motion within the time specified. It is true the trial court did not act until September 29, 1983; however, at that time, the court made a nunc pro tunc entry for June 20, 1983. Thus the court's order book now shows that the State's request for trial setting and showing the court's congestion was filed and granted.
The court also took judicial knowledge of the fact the calendar was congested at that time and named the three cases which required attention during the period involved. Under the circumstances of this case, I see no justification for the ordering of appellant's discharge.
I would hold that Ind.R.Cr.P. 4(C) was not violated and that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for discharge.
GIVAN, C.J., dissenting opinion in which PIVARNIK, J., concurs.