Court Opinion

ID: 9545171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:43.466598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:14.107167
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.
Defendant appeals from a jury verdict of guilty of two counts of armed robbery. He makes three assignments of error; denial of a motion to sup*129press, denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, and denial of motion for mistrial based on misconduct of the prosecutor. The motion to suppress evidence was filed and served on the district attorney about 10 minutes before trial was scheduled to start. Although the motion was not timely, and the trial judge could have refused to consider it, he allowed a hearing on the motion to precede the trial.
At this hearing it was established that at about 7:30 a.m. on March 15,1970, defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police, and at that time defendant was arrested and searched.
About four hours earlier two armed men wearing pillow cases as masks had robbed a Portland motel. Just minutes before the robbery the motel night clerk had seen Alva Lambert, the motel maintenance man, and another man on the premises putting pillow cases over their heads. His suspicions aroused, the clerk made a list of some of the serial numbers on the currency then in the cash drawer.
From the motel’s personnel records, the police got Lambert’s address and a description of his vehicle. Police proceeded to Lambert’s address and were told by a woman there, Ruby White, that she had not seen Lambert in several days. A few minutes later and a few blocks away two police cars stopped Lambert’s vehicle.
Sergeant Johnson took the driver, Lambert, to his car and began questioning him. Officer Webber took the passenger, the present defendant, to his ear and began questioning him. Defendant claimed he had spent the night drinking with Lambert and Ruby White. This contradicted what Ruby White had just told the officers.
*130As Lambert and defendant were being questioned, Officer Crampton arrived from the robbery scene with the list of serial numbers of some of the currency taken. Officer Crampton went first to Sergeant Johnson’s car and checked the currency in Lambert’s possession, some of which matched that taken in the robbery. He next went to Officer Webber’s car and examined the currency in defendant’s possession, some of which also matched that taken in the robbery.
Based on the information the police had gathered from the victims of the robbery and elsewhere, there was a well-warranted suspicion that defendant had something to do with the robbery. And under these circumstances, a warrantless search was permissible to avoid the loss of evidence. State v. Keith, 2 Or App 133, 141, 465 P2d 724, Sup Ct review denied (1970).
Defendant filed another motion 10 minutes before the trial was scheduled to start. It read:
* * [Defendant * * * moves the Court for an Order dismissing all evidence taken from the defendant as a result of unwarranted delays # * # »
Although not artfully drawn, it was treated as a motion to dismiss because of denial of defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. The trial court’s denial of this motion is the basis of defendant’s second assignment of error.
The facts relevant to this contention are: On May 22, 1970, a two-count indictment was returned against defendant. On June 19, the matter was resubmitted to the grand jury, which returned a three-count indictment, and on the state’s motion the earlier indictment was dismissed on that date. During the *131fall of 1970, the case was set for trial twice, but wTas set over both times. Trial was next scheduled for February 4, 1971, but again set over when defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice against the judge assigned to preside on that date. Trial commenced March 15, 1971.
Viewing these facts most favorably to the defendant, the total delay for which he is not responsible is about eight-and-a-half months, that is, from the date of the first indictment, May 22, to the scheduled trial date of February 4.
In State v. Robinson, 3 Or App 200, 473 P2d 152 (1970), we held that delay does not violate the right to a speedy trial unless the cause is improper and the defendant is prejudiced. 3 Or App at 214. Here most of the delay appears to have been caused by: (1) the state’s decision to prosecute co-defendant Lambert first, with the present defendant’s trial to follow immediately; and (2) the fact that Lambert apparently requested continuances causing the postponement of both trials. Although the record does not include any explanation for the state’s decision to proceed in this manner, we cannot conclude from the limited record before us that the state’s preference to try Lambert first caused improper delay. In addition, defendant has never claimed nor shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the delay.
Although we have considered it upon its merits, defendant’s speedy trial motion was not timely. Begarding an analogous situation, it has long been held that a motion to suppress must be filed before trial. State v. Ramon, 248 Or 96, 432 P2d 507 (1967); State v. Haynes, 233 Or 292, 377 P2d 166 (1963). This rule is based on the belief that it is inappropriate to have a *132“trial within a trial” to determine the admissibility of evidence. The reasoning behind the rule makes it clear that the requirement of a pretrial motion means a motion filed considerably sooner than 10 minutes before trial is scheduled to start.
The same rationale applies to a speedy trial motion. As is the situation with a motion to suppress, a speedy trial motion will likely require an evidentiary hearing. The facts developed at such a hearing might include, for example, such matters as the normal period of delay for similar offenses, whether the delay in question is attributable to the state or the defendant, if attributable to the state, can the state present a good faith explanation, and in what ways has the defendant been prejudiced by the delay. See, generally, State v. Robinson, supra.
Just as there should not be a “trial within a trial” to determine a suppression motion, there should not be a “trial immediately before a trial” to determine a speedy trial motion. Instead, sound judicial administration requires that a speedy trial motion be filed as soon as a defendant believes there are grounds for it. For example, in this case, there is no reason why defendant’s speedy trial motion could not have been filed before February 4, 1971, the penultimate date upon which the trial was scheduled to begin.
Defendant’s final assignment of error claims that a motion for mistrial should have been granted because of prosecutor misconduct in the form of repeated facial contortions, grimaces, and similar expressions. A motion for mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Smith, 4 Or App 261, 478 P2d 417 (1970). Here the trial judge observed the prosecutor’s facial expressions and weighed their possible effect on the jury. *133However this behavior may have influenced the jury’s opinion of the prosecutor, we agree with the trial judge that it is extremely unlikely it prejudiced the defendant. No abuse of discretion has been shown.
Affirmed.