Opinion ID: 1693342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: constitutional speedy trial claim

Text: The constitutional right to a speedy trial is found in U.S. Const. amend. VI and Neb. Const. art. I, § 11. The constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statutory implementation of that right exist independently of each other. State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962, 579 N.W.2d 541 (1998); State v. Turner, 252 Neb. 620, 564 N.W.2d 231 (1997). Determining whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated requires a balancing test in which the courts must approach each case on an ad hoc basis. State v. Turner, supra. This balancing test involves four factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. State v. Kula, supra; State v. Turner, supra. None of these four factors standing alone is a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right to a speedy trial; rather, the factors are related and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. State v. Turner, supra. See, also, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). In the present case, Ward's trial commenced 350 days after the filing of the information against him. Of that time, however, 168 days are attributable to Ward, as calculated above. This means that the State took 182 days to bring Ward to trial. We have already determined that the length of this delay was insufficient to warrant discharge in the context of § 29-1207, and while the constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights exist independently of one another, State v. Kula, supra, the statute provides a useful standard for assessing whether the length of delay before trial is unreasonable under the Constitution. With regard to the reason for the delay, Ward has not alleged that the State intentionally sought to delay his trial. In fact, while the State may have intended to impinge on Ward's appellate rights with the suggestion that Ward's motion to discharge be held under advisement, it is evident from the record that the primary motive of the prosecutor was to avoid delay in bringing Ward to trial. While we do not approve of the State's tactics, this record indicates that the State did not pursue intentional delay. Ward has not alleged that he was prejudiced by the delay before his trial. The intervening delay does not appear to have deprived Ward of the benefit of any evidence or the testimony of any defense witnesses, nor does it appear to have interfered in any other way with Ward's ability to present his defense. The sole argument raised by Ward with reference to his constitutional claim is that the time taken on the interlocutory appeal in this case should somehow be counted against the State, because of the impropriety of the prosecutor's request that the trial court take Ward's motion to discharge under advisement. This argument is not persuasive. The record suggests that Ward intended to appeal from the denial of his motion to discharge. Instead, Ward appealed from the taking under advisement of his motion to discharge. Had Ward appealed from a proper denial, the appellate process would still have resulted in a delay before Ward's trial. In fact, that delay would likely have been longer, as the appeal would have proceeded through briefing and argument before final disposition, instead of being summarily dismissed. Moreover, given the 20 days of excludable time attributable to Ward's discovery motions, the Court of Appeals would properly have concluded that Ward's appeal lacked merit, and the district court's determination would have been affirmed. Consequently, it is difficult to discern how Ward's position would have been altered for the better had his motion for speedy trial been appropriately ruled on before trial. Ward's constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated in the instant case by the overall delay before his trial or by the delay occasioned by his interlocutory appeal. Ward's constitutional speedy trial claim is without merit.