Court Opinion

ID: 9744398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:53.75161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.935122
License: Public Domain

BAILEY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I am constrained to concur in the result reached by the majority. Simply stated, I agree with the dissent of Justice DeBruler in State ex rel. O’Donnell v. Cass Superior Court, wherein he concluded that continuances caused by agreement of the parties are within the intendment of Criminal Rule 4 and should extend the one-year period for bringing the accused to trial. 468 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind.1984) (DeBruler, J., dissenting). In my opinion, it is of no moment that the delay caused by the defendant’s request for a continuance occurred before or after a trial date was set.
Certainly, it is the defendant’s right to be tried within one year from the date the *608criminal charge against him is filed. Crim. R. 4. In furtherance of this objective, courts set an omnibus date from which various deadlines are established. Ind. Code § 35-36-8-1. Among other matters, this date determines when discovery is to be completed, when motions are to be filed, and when notice of certain defenses are to be served on the State. See, e.g., Ind.Code § 35-36-4-1 (addressing timing for notice of alibi defense).
The reason for establishing an omnibus date is to provide for the orderly and timely disposition of the criminal charges. In effect, the requirement of an omnibus date strengthens the tenet of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Certainly, through the actions of the accused, the right to a speedy trial, like other rights, can be waived. In my opinion, an agreement between the accused and the prosecutor to continue the omnibus hearing is effectively a continuance of the trial date because the necessary point in -time from which various deadlines are established has also been continued by the actions of the accused. In other words, an agreement to delay the orderly and timely disposition of a criminal proceeding is no less attributable to the defendant in this instance simply because no trial date had yet been set.
Frankly, I believe that a continuance of the omnibus hearing invites chaos and, as the law currently stands, affords the defendant the opportunity to gain an unwarranted procedural advantage over the State. Because the trial court granted the defendant’s request for a continuance of the omnibus hearing, I am hard pressed to understand how a delay caused by the defendant in establishing this date is prejudicial to him or in conflict with Criminal Rule 4. By obtaining a continuance, Carr not only delayed judgment day, he avoided trial completely on the bulk of the charges.
I would encourage a re-examination of the precedent that established the rule at issue today. However, because the rule is as it is, I must reluctantly concur in result.