Court Opinion

ID: 9725171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:33:37.123039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:03.276448
License: Public Domain

SMITH, J.,
(concurring specially). I concur in the foregoing opinion excepting the paragraph thereof which would operate to overrule Colvin v. Callahan, 46 S.D. 221( 191 N.W. 948, and to reconstrue SDC I960' Supp. 34.2201.
Whether, under the circumstances of a particular case, a defendant has been deprived of a speedy trial guaranteed by § 7, Art. VI of the Constitution of South Dakota is a judicial question. State v. Violett, 79 S.D. 292, 111 N.W.2d 598. A legislature may exceed its powers and encounter this provision of the constitution in saying a trial is speedy if held within a certain time and under described conditions. Of course, in regulating criminal procedure it can provide for dismissal of a prosecution if an information be not filed within a prescribed time. State v. LeFlohic, 127 Minn. 505, 150 N.W. 171; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 467(4), p. 30. Terms of Circuit court in most of our counties are opened at six-month intervals. To await the next term may involve months of unreasonable delay. I am not prepared to say that the constitution contemplates so much delay in criminal prosecutions under any and all circumstances. I prefer to adhere to the rule of the Colvin case because no such automatic delays, without cause, are thereby invited. Further, I am impelled to presume that the legislature intended the Colvin construction of the cited statute because it subsequently reenacted it without change as SDC 34.2201 of the 1939 Code. Smiley v. Armstrong, 66 S.D. 31, 278 N.W. 21; and Stewart v. Rapid City, 48 S.D. 554, 205 N.W. 654.
In my opinion, in dealing with similar, but somewhat different language, in the context of statutes dealing with *585municipal courts, and terms of court opened at intervals of but thirty days, in the case of State v. Smith, 70 S.D. 402, 18 N.W.2d 246, this court did not intend to recede from Colvin v. Callahan.
Although counsel for defendant made repeated demands of the state’s attorney that he file an information forthwith, he failed to seek the aid of the court in enforcing the right of his client. In State v. Violett, 79 S.D. 292, 111 N.W.2d 598 at 603, it was written:
“We adhere to the view • that a defendant waives his right to a speedy trial under the constitution and statutes in aid thereof if he does not resist postponement or move to bring his case on for trial.”
As foreshadowed by that decision, I am of the view we should now hold that because this defendant failed to seek the aid of the court in enforcing his right, he is not now in position to assert he was denied a speedy trial. A different rule would permit astute counsel to employ these solicitous provisions as offensive weapons. State v. Mc-Tague,. 173 Minn. 153, 216 N.W. 787. Hence, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to say that RENTTO, P. J., and ROBERTS, J., concur in the views I have expressed.