### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 85 -C R

______________________________ PATRI CK WAYNE PUCKETT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 30763-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issThe bra wl happene d May

16, 2003. Trial occ urre d Marc h 24–25, 2008. 1 Also appea led to our Court was the c ase of J ustin Allen Dokter, our c ase numbe r 2 06 -0 8- 00 07 1- CR, wh ic h a ro se fr om the same br awl and wa s tr ie d a ft e r a lon g de lay

ve ry sim ila r t o the delay in this case . We note signific ant contra sts in the two cases. Pucke tt presented e vidence of thr e e wi tne sse s w ho c ou ld n ot b e loc a te d and int ro du c e d e vid e nc e of ho w tho se wi tne sse s w ou ld have be en ex pecte d to testify ; Dokter prove d the abse nce of only one witness and f

ailed to prove the testimony expected fr om that witness. Moreo ver, Pucke tt proved the long standing exis tence of a tentative plea ag ree ment in his case on which he understanda bly relied in a llowing a period of y ear s to elapse w hile the ca ses lang uished on the docke t. No such proof exis ted in Dokter' s case . 2 O P I N I O N Almost five y ear s afte r the ba r room bra w l that resulted in serious pe rsonal injury to Timothy 1 Driscoll and a g g ravated assault cha rg es ag ainst Patrick Way

ne Pucke tt, Pucke tt was tried, convic ted, and sente nced to f

ive y ear s' confine ment. Be cause that delay denied Puckett his constituti onal rig ht to a sp e e dy tr ia l, w e re ve rs e the jud g me nt a nd re nd e r a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l. 2 On the e ve nin g of

the br awl , Puc ke tt wa s hav ing a fe w dr ink s at a clu b, wh e n h e re pu te dly
saw a friend—Justin Dokter, also befor e this Court on appea l from his own convic tion—on the floor and beingbeate n by

a g roup of individuals. Puckett wade d into the m el ee s wi n gi n g a pool cue
. Th e re is t e sti mony

that th e cue hi t D ri sc oll in t he he a d, inf

lic tin g se ri ou s in

jur y . T he re is a lso testimony that the fig ht be g an when Dokter threw the first punch at Driscoll. Appar ently , there had been a disag ree ment about who would g et a pool table f or the ne x t ga

me. Puckett testified that, when he first saw Dokte r being attacke d, Dokter w as on the g round, being hit by

more than one person with hands a nd fists, a nd that he believed that, to protect Dokte rThey wer e not tr ied toge ther beca use Dokter ha d sever al prior f elonies, while Pucke tt had 3 no pr ior fe lon ie s. 3 fr om d e a th o r s e ri ou s in

jur y , a nd in l ig ht o f t

he mul tip le a tta c ke rs , th e us e of the po ol c ue or so me
o t h e r w e a p o nw o u l d

b e i m m e d i a t e l y n e c e s s ar y. Just ove r thr e e y e ars a ft e r tho se e ve nts , on J un e 26 , 200 6, the pr os e c uti ng a tto rn e y a t th e tim e
re po rt e dly a g re e d tha t Puck e tt' s cha rg e wo uld be re du c e d to a

mis de me ano r, re su lti ngin a c ounty ja il
se nte nc e . T his a

pp are nt a g re e me nt w a s n e ve r f ina lize d, de sp ite re pe a te d e ff or ts b y P u c k e tt ' s c o u

ns e l, and a later prose cutor fe lt no need to honor it. The new prosec utor, instead, prose cuted Pucke tt for the fe lony char g e at bar. Trial was finally held i n Marc h 2008, two wee ks afte r Dokter was tried. 3 Puc ke tt a rgue s th a t th e pr os e c uti on sh ou ld have be e n dism iss e d be c a us e he wa s d e nie d h is rig ht to a speedy trial. I f a violation of the speedy -trial rig ht is established, the only possible remedy is dismi ssal of the prose cution. Strunk v. United States , 412 U.S. 434, 440 (1973). I n deter mining whe ther a

n acc used has be en denie d his or her r ight to a spe edy trial, a c ourt must use a balanc ing te st "i n wh i ch t h e conduct of both the prose cution and the de fenda nt are wei ghed. " Barker v. W

ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). The fac tors to be weig hed include, but a re not nece ssarily

limit ed to, the leng th of the delay , the re ason for the delay , the def

endant' s assertion of his or her speedy -trial right, and the prejudice t o the defendant re sulting fr om the delay
. Id . No single fac tor is nece ssary or sufficient to establish a viol ation of t he right t o a spee dy trial. Id . at 533; Dragoo v . S

tat e , 96 S.W .3d 308, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).I n g ener al, delay approa ching one y ear is sufficient to trig g er a

speedy trial inquiry
. Do gg e tt 4 v. United States , 5 05 U. S. 6 47 , 6 51 –5 2 ( 19 92 ); Sh aw v . S tat e , 1 17 S.W. 3d

88 3, 889 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2003).
4 The leng th of this delay

—near ly five y ear s—is c l ea rly

enoug h to require a Barker revie w, and is cer tainly excessive. See Barker , 4 0 7 U
. S
. a t5 3 0

– 3 4
. T h e r e w a s n o o n e r e a s o nf o r t h e d e l a y, 4

and it i s a pp are nt t hat, w hil e so me min or

po rt ion s o f t

he de lay re su lte d fr om co nti nu anc e re qu e sts by defe nse counse l, other portions wer e due to the presumed ag ree ment and still others due to the State' s r e qu e s ts , w h ic h th e St a te e xp la in s a s o c c ur r in g b e c a u s e th e v ic ti m w a s in c a

p a c it a te d
. The de lay be tw e e n 2 00 3 a

nd 20 06 is ba sic a lly un e xpla ine d. Th e sp e e dy -t ri a l rig ht wa s not as se rt e d unti l immediately

befor e the tria l beg an. Th e pr ima

ry fo c us of Puc ke tt' s a

rgume nt i s th a t th e e l a

p s e d t i m e a llo we d w itn e sse s to be c ome unavailable or, if ava ilable, t o suffe r from faded or chang ed memorie s. Thus, he ar g ues, there was such pre judice to his ability

to defe nd himself from the c harg e that his rig hts were violated. When a re viewing court a naly zes the fourth Barker

fac tor (pre

judice to the ac cused) , it must do so in light of the de fend an t 's interest that the spe edy -trial rig ht was d e s ig n e d to p r o te c t: ( 1 ) to p r e v e n t o p p r e s s iv e p r e tr ia l i n c ar c e r a ti o n , ( 2 ) to mi n im iz e t h e a cc u s ed 's an x i et y

an d co n ce rn , an d

(3 ) t o l i m i t t h e po s s i b i l i t y t h at t h e a cc u s ed 's defe nse will be impai re d
. Of these ty pes of pr ejudice, the last is the most serious " be c a us e the ina

bil ity of a de fe nd ant ad e qu a te ly to pr e pa re his c a se sk e ws the fa ir

ne ss of the e ntire justice sy stem." Can tu v . S

tat e , 2 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d

2 7 3 , 2 8 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Dragoo , 9 6 S
. W
. 3d at 316) (footnote omitted)).5

The de fenda

nt has the burde n to make some showingof pre judice, althoug h showing actua l prejudice is not required. Mu no z v. S tat e , 991 S.W .2d 818, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). When the defe ndant makes a

prima fac ie showing of pre judice, the bur den shifts to the State to show that the de fe nd ant suf

fe re d "n o s e ri ou s p re

jud ic e be y on d th a t w hic h e ns ue d f ro m th e or din ary

and ine vit a ble del ay ." Id
. (q u o t i n g Ex

pa rteMc Ke nz ie , 4 91 S.W. 2d

12 2, 12 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 )) ; Blaylock

v . S tat e , 259 S.W .3d 202, 210 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. re f' d). Th e re c o r d

o f t h e h e ar i n g o nt h e s p e e dy - t r i a l c l a i m s h o w s t h e f o l l o w i n g . T h e o f

fe ns e
occur red in May

2003. At a pretria l he aring held in Aug ust 2003, the ca se wa s continued from September

12, 2003, to October

20 , 2003, beca

use the victim was in re habilitation. Eleven months later, on Aug ust 20, 2004, the docket sheet indicates that Pucke tt did not appear f or a doc ket call, but another

entry the same da

y indicates that he was in c ustody when the case was c alled, and the pena lties were set aside. On Aug ust 31, 2005, Puckett reque sted and wa s g rante d a continuanc e until after Septembe r 16 , 2 0 0 5. Def ense c ounsel testified that, at a J une 26, 2006, hea

ring , the assistant prosec utor stated that the case was to be reduc ed to a misdemeanor and that defe nse counse l g ot the court re porter w ho had attended that hear ing to c onfirm the assistant prosec utor' s statement fr om t he no te s ta

ke n at th a t he ari ng . D e fe ns e c ouns e l a lso te sti fi e d th a t, a ft e r t hat date , h e sp ok e to the a ssi sta

nt d istri c t a tto rn e y

se ve ra l ti me s, and le ft

him no te s, a sk ingto g e t th e ma tte r r e so lve d, to
no a va il. Th e State ma de no e ff or t to re bu t tho se fa c tua l c la ims by de fe ns e c ouns e l, s ay ingme re ly that a ne w p ro se c uto r d isa g re e d w iththe ple a a g re e me nt p re vio us ly

ma de wi th P uc ke tt.Although the trial court noted that it saw the case on the docke t in J anuar y 2007, that is not 5 re fl e c te d b y

the tr ia l c ourt ' s d oc ke t c on ta ine d in the re c or d b e fo re us . See also testimony

of police of

fice r B rant Smith, acknowledg ing the same. 6 6 Nothing f urther a ppear s in the docket until January 25, 2008, when the c ase w as continued at Puckett' s reque st until Marc h 10, 2008. Trial wa s finally held Marc h 24–25, 2008. 5 I n order to show the harm cause d by the delay , defe nse counsel was placed under oath and te st ifie d. De fe ns e c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t, b e c a us e of the mul ti- y e ar d e lay , h e wa s una ble to l oc a te Rache l Malone, an e mploy ee at the bar, who had indicated in her state ment to police that someone in the bar hit Drisc oll with a beer bottle. Counsel testified that he wa s unable to locate J ames F ord,

6 who had indicated in his state ment to police that he did not know who hit any one with a pool cue
. Counsel testified that he wa s unable to locate Alen Ale x ander , who informed police that he did not see Pucke tt hit any on e, b u t did see Dr iscoll hit hi s head quite ha rd on the pool table a fter D okter struck Dr iscoll. C o u n s el al s o testified that Christina Adkins had evidently told the State that she might be available but had suff ere d a per sonal trag edy , and had sa id in her witness statement that she saw Dokte r hit Driscoll repe atedly afte r Drisc oll was on the g round. When counsel wa s asked by the State whethe r those missing witnesses we re the sole rea son for his ar g ument, he re sponded that the natura l de g radation of witnesses' memories over a five -y ear time period wa s also a major f actor
. Th e tr ia l c ourt

too k o ve r q

ue sti on ingof

de fe ns e c ouns e l f

ro m th e pro secu to r a t th a t po int , asking him if the matter had e ver be en put off be cause defe nse coun s el had a vacation. Counsel7

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he too k v a c a tio ns . T he c ourt a sk e d c ouns e l if

the tr ia l ha d b e e n p ut o ff

be c a us e of injuries to defe nse counse l that had re quired him to take time off work. Counsel re sponded that he did not know whethe r trial wa s delay ed then. Finally , the cour t also questioned counse l about whether those witnesses mig ht have be come unavailable shortly afte r t he case was indicted. Counsel
a dmi tte d th a t it

wa s p os sib le , b ut t

hat he ha d n o k

no wl e dg e of

that. From th is re c or d, ne ith e r d id any one else have suc h knowledg e. Def ense c ounsel als o p ointed out that he had r ead the transcr iption of Dokter' s trial two
we ek s ea rl i er

an d t h at i twa s ap p ar en tt h at s o m e o f t h e wi t n es s es h ad m em o ry p ro b l em s . T h e S t at e's response was that memory loss star ts the day afte r an event, and thus the re was no rea l ha rm, as the witnesses we re a

ble to testify

about the g ener al cour se of the of fense
. Ultimately , the trial cour

t denied the motion, with its st ated rea son being that "only now on the eve of trial do we ge t a Mot ion to Dismiss for L ack of Speedy Trial. That just don't se em rig ht to me. Ideny

the motion." On a pp e a l, t he State fo c us e s on the e vid e nt fa c t that th e de lay wa s p art ia lly

c a us e d b y de fe ns e counsel. The i n fo rm ation provided a bove, howe ver, shows that by far the g reatest portion of the delay was attributable to the State' s inaction, rathe r than to a ctions by the defe nse. T h i s fa ctor weig hs ag ainst the State. Th e State a lso po int s o ut t hat Pu c ke tt d id n ot file a sp e e dy -t ri a l r e qu e st u

nti l ve ry sh or tly befor e trial wa s actua lly held. This is corre ct, and would ty p i ca l l y we i gh heavily

ag ainst the8

defe ndant. The impac t of that inaction, howe ver, is subst antially lessened be cause of the unique fac ts in thi s case . Puckett believed, rea sonably , that an ag ree ment with the State had bee n rea ched and that all that re mained wa s to formalize that ag ree ment for his guilty plea. I n that situation, there would be no re ason for

Puckett to seek a

speedy trial, or any

trial at all, but just to tr

y to conclude the plea a g ree ment, which he did se ek to do. I nstead, the State a llowed the case to sit idle for se vera l y ear s, and ultimately

chang ed its mind about the ag ree ment befor e it came to full fruition. The likelihood of the ag ree ment being formalized ex tended until at least e arly 2007, when the a ssistant d i s t r i c ta t t o r

n e y w h o h a d

m a d e t h e a g r e e m e n t w a s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y o f ana d j o i n i n g c o u n t y. Thus, we cannot hold the delay in filing a

motion for speedy

trial ag ainst Puckett to any deg ree , as it d id n ot b e c ome a

pp are nt u nti l e arl y 20 08 that tr ia l w ou ld h a

pp e n at a ll. The State dire cts us to lang uage stating that, whe n a def endant f ails to tim ely

demand a speedy trial, there was no desire to have one and no harm in not having one. See Shaw , 117 S.W .3d
a t 89 0. Un de r t

he se fa c ts, the re a so n f

or no t se e kin g a sp e e dy tr ia l e arl ie r c ann ot r e a so na bly be sa id to i nd ic a te str on g ly

tha t Pu c ke tt w ante d n o tr ia l, b ut r a the r t ha t he wa s wa iti ng fo r the State to f ulf ill its sta te d p ur po se to f or ma lize an a g re e me nt. Un de r the se fa c ts, we wi ll not ho ld t his fa ilure a g a ins t Puc ke tt. I t appea rs that P u ck et t wa s out on bond for a sizable portion of this time, so pretria l incar cer ation is not a signi fi ca n t consi deration. There is little testimony about such matter s as unusual anxiety

or conc ern.9

Th e ma in i ssu e in t

his c a se is rel ated t o th e fa c tor that is re c og nize d a s b e ingthe mos t important, the presumption that the leng thy delay here did adver sely

aff ect Pucke tt's a

bility to defe nd himself. See D ragoo , 96 S. W
. 3 d at 315. When the defe ndant makes a prima fa cie showingof prejudice , the burde n shifts t o t h e S tate to show that the de fenda nt suffer ed " no serious pre judice bey on d t hat whi ch e n s u e d fr om th e ord in ary andin evi tab le d ela y ." Munoz , 991 S.W .2d at 826 (q u o t i n g Mc

Ke nz ie , 491 S.W .2d at 123). A delay of m ore than two y ear s is ty pically so excessive so as to be pre sumptively

prejudicia l. Gu aja rd

o v . S tat e , 999 S.W .2d 566, 570 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 1 4 t h Di s t
. ] 1 9 9 9 , p e t
. r ef 'd ) ( ci t i n g Do gg e tt , 505 U.S. at 654–57). Ye t, even the c ase w here the delay is presumptively

prejudicia l, the d ef

en d an t must neverthele ss show that he or she has bee n prejudice d by

the delay
. Id. ; Pa lac ios v . S tat e , 225 S.W .3d 162, 169 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). Th oma s John so n te sti fi e d that Do kte r hit Dr isc oll and

that, i mme diate ly

the re a ft e r, Puc ke tt hit Dr isc oll on

the ba c k o f t

he he a d w itha

po ol c ue . O n cr os s- e xami natio n, it w a s a pp are nt t hat, i n
a numbe r o f o the r r e sp e c ts, his te sti mony and his c on te mpo ra

ne ou s st a te me nt w e re in c on fl ic t. John Ad a m i t e s t i f

i e d t h a tD r i s c o l l an d

D o kt e r w e r e f i g h t i n g
— w h i c h h e e s s e n t i a l ly ig no re d— and

that Pu c ke tt c a me up fr om b e hin d a nd hit Dr isc oll wi th a

po ol c ue , th a t D ri sc oll fe ll do wn , and that Do kte r g ot on top of him and ke pt o n h itt inghim . O n c ro ss- e xami natio n, it b e c a me appar ent that in his c ontemporane ous statement to police , Adami did not mention the use of a pool cue. A dami testified that he g ot involved with the fig ht, hit P uckett, knocke d him down, and then10

was g rabbe d by

the bounce r. When asked if the fig ht involved Driscoll and Dokter both throwing punches, A dami did not reca ll, but chara cter ized the incident as a f ight be tween the two. Sheri McCarty , Dokter' s g irlfriend, testified that Dokter a nd Driscoll exchang ed wor ds and then punche s, and "a big old dog pile happene d." She testified that, while Dokter and Driscoll wer e fig hting, two other

men attac ked Dokter . When that happene d, she t old Puckett to g et i nto the fig ht to h e lp D ok

te r. She te sti fi e d tha t she saw Puc ke tt with a poo l cue bu t nev e r s aw h im m a ke c on ta c t. Charles Waldon, the bounce r at the bar, testified that he had seen Dokte r and D riscoll arguing
an d t h at W al d o n , h i m s el f, p u td o wn a d o l l ar t o p ay fo r t h e p o o l gam e a ti s s u e. T h ey k ep tar gu i n g. Wal do n to ld D ok

te r t o le a ve . B ut, a ft e r D ok te r b ri e fl y le ft , h e re tur

ne d a nd a tta c ke d D ri sc oll wi th his fist. At that "time Isaw a pool stic k co m e u p , P at rick Puckman [sic] hit Timothy Driscoll." Waldon testified that he saw no one except Puckett jump in and hit any one. Howe ver, a s pointed out by defe nse counse l, in the immediate afte rmath of the e vent, Waldon had told police that Dokter was the one who hit Driscoll with a pool cue. Wal do n' s te sti mony

is t e lli ngin o ne fu

rt he r r e sp e c t. D e fe ns e c ouns e l ask e d him t o r e a d h is statement and p o i n t ed o u t that it did not m atch his testimony . The followingexchang e then
occur red: A. I ' m try ing to r emember , it's be en five y ear s ag o. Q. An d th a t' s a

fa ir state me nt, it h a s b e e n –

fi ve y e ars is a

lon g tim e , is n' t it
. A Yes, sir.11

A s e c ur ity

vid e o w a s play e d f

or the jur y . I t w a s o f b a d e no ug h q

ua lity that it wa s e ff e c tiv e ly worthless. Witnesses and counse l ag ree d that it did not reveal e ither anyone beingstruck by a pool
c u e o r t h e f i g h tb e t w e e nD r i s c o l l an d

D o kt e r , o n l y a n u mb e r o f p e o p l e m o v i n g ar o u n d p r e t t y qu i c k l y. I t w a s t h e d

u t y o f t h e S t a t e t o r e b u t t h e s h o w i n g o f p r e j u d i c e m a d e b y P u c k e t t
. T he Sta te argues in its brief that it had re butted any signific ant " memory

loss of the witnesses, base d on the fa ct that some of the same witnesses testified suc cessf ully in the companion ca se t ried two wee ks befor e the pre sent ca s e. " T hat does not nec essar ily follow. I n fac t, this chain of eve nts sugg ests the opposite result would be more likely
. I f witnesses have been r ece ntly prepa red to testify

about an
e ve nt t hat oc c ur re d f ive y e ars pr e vio us ly , th e n a c tua lly qu e sti on e d and c ro ss- e xami ne d a bo ut it, it is at least equa lly

likely th at their memorie s were supplemented by what they

hear d and said at Do kte r' s tr ia l. The S t at e sug g ests no other viable rea son to sugg est that it had rebutted the showing of prejudice . Puckett showed that witnesse s with releva nt te stimony wer e not a

vailable, and nothing bu t sp e c ulatio n w a s p ro vid e d to su g g e st h owthe de lay mig ht n ot h a ve ha

rm e d Pu c ke tt' s a

bil ity to locate those wi t n es s es . T he State also sug g ested that the de lay did not substantially

aff ect the
m e m o r i e s o f

t h o s e i n v o l v e d , b u tt h e t r i a l r e c o r d s u g g e s t s t h e c o n t r ar

y. As pointed out above, f

ive y ea rs i s a long time to keep de tails in memory , and it is a long tim e duri ngwh ic h a me mor y mig ht mor

ph int o so me thi ng e lse
. Th is p ro ble m w a s e mph a size d in12

c ro ss- e xami natio n w he n c ouns e l po i nt e d o ut m a t e r i a l i n c o n s ist e nc ie s b e tw e e n th e wr itt e n s ta te me nts of vir tua lly e ve ry wi tne ss a nd the ir c on te mpo ra

ne ou s st a te me nts
. Th e re c or d r e ve a ls that th e e xce ssi ve de lay be tw e e n the braw l and the tr ia l ma y ve ry we ll have f igur ed into at least thre e discre pancie s in key testimony
. J ohnson, who was one who testified at trial that Puckett hit Driscoll with the pool cue, ha d many conflicts between his trial testimony and his c on te mpo ra

ne ou s st a te me nt. Ad a mi wa s ano the r wh o tes tif ie d at tr ia l th a t Pu c ke tt h it D ri sc oll with the pool cue, but his contempora neous statement did not mention that key fac t. Waldon, the b o u n ce r a tt h e b ar , wa s s t i l l an o t h er wh o s ai d P u ck et th i t Dr i s co l l wi t h t h e p o o l cu e; b u tW al d o n 's
c on te mpo ra

ne ou s st a te me nt c la ime d th a t Dokter wa s th e on e wh o h it Dr isc oll with the pool cue. We also rec all that thes e witnesses were unavailable due to the dela y : Malone, a ba

r
e mpl oy e e wh o h a d to ld p oli c e that so me on e ha d h it D ri sc oll wi th a be e r b ott le ; F or d, wh o h a d to ld police that he did not know who hit any one with a pool cue ; Alexander, who ha d told police that he did not see Puckett hit any one, but that he did se e Driscoll hit his head hard on the pool table af ter Dokter hit him; an d Adki ns, who had told police that she sa w Dokter hit Driscoll repe atedly

afte r he wa s on the g round. W e n o w m u s tb al an ce t h o s e f ac t o rs . W ei gh i n g i nfa v o r o f f i n d i n g a v i o l at i o no f P u ck et t 's rig ht to a speedy

trial are the excessive dela y , for the va st majority o f wh i ch t h e S t ate of fer ed no valid rea son. Co m bined with this is t he conf usion eng ender ed by

the State' s ultim ate c hang e of position—after four

y ear s had ela

psed—not to abide by an ag ree ment announce d two y ear s ear lier.Pucke tt a ls o c o n te n d s th e tr ia l c o u rt e r r e d b y r e f u s in g to s u

b mi t a r e qu e s te d

d efe nsive 7 instruction to the jury
. Be cause the other issue disposes of this c ase, we need not addre ss this i ssue. 13 Th e State c re a te d th e de lay , a c qu ie sc e d in it, and no w s e e ks to u se the re su lt s of tha t de lay fo r i ts own adva ntag e. Finally , unlike many

of the cases cited by the S tate, in this case, Pucke tt provided testimony about the loss of witnesses who c ould appar ently , from their contempora neous reports to the police, have pr ov ide d te sti mony

su bs tanti a lly

a t od ds wi th t

he State ' s th e or

y of the a ssa ult
. U n d e r t h e s e f a c t s , w e c o n c l u d e P u c k e t th a s s h o w np r e j u d i c e a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e d e l a y. Al tho ug h a sh ow ing of " a c tua l pre jud ic e " is not re qu ir e d in Texa s, the burd e n is on the a c c us e d to make some showingof pre judice which w as ca

used by the delay of hi s or her trial. Ha rri

s v . S tat e , 4 8 9 S
. W
. 2 d

3 0 3 , 3 0 8 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 3 ) (c i t i n g Cou rtn e yv . S tat e , 4 72 S.W. 2d

15 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 71 ))
. Th is fa c tor we ig hs he a vil y in fa vo r o f f ind inga vio la tio n o f P uc ke tt' s sp e e dy -t ri a l r ig ht. After consideringall fac tors involved, we c onclude Pucke tt was denied his constit utional ri g ht t o a sp e e dy tr ia l. 714

We r e ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

and re nd e r a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l.

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 26, 2009 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 13, 2009 Pub lis h