Court Opinion

ID: 9627543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:47:32.660881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:46.825013
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, J.,
dissents.
IV.
THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF I.C. § 19-3501(2).
Horsley asserts that under I.C. § 19-3501(2) he should have been tried within six months from the date the first information was filed. We disagree.
I.C. § 19-3501 (1987) states:
The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution or indictment to be dismissed, in the following cases:
2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the indictment or information is filed with the court.
Since we have concluded that the first information was dismissed as of December 14, 1987, this statute was not violated by the lack of a trial within six months of the filing of the first information. Horsley acknowledges that if a felony case is dismissed pursuant to I.C.R. 48(a)(2), the six month requirement of I.C. § 19-3501 is renewed upon the refiling of the charge. This is consistent with our decision in State v. Goodmiller, 86 Idaho 233, 386 P.2d 365 (1963). In Goodmiller the original information was dismissed on motion of the prosecutor because a material witness was unavailable. More than a year later a new information was filed. This Court affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss brought by the defendant both on constitutional speedy trial grounds and under I.C. § 19-3501. We held that when an information has been dismissed under I.C. § 19-3504 “in furtherance of justice,” the dismissal was not a bar to another prosecution commenced within the period of the statute of limitations.
AS TO PART IV:
BAKES, C.J., JOHNSON, BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.