Court Opinion

ID: 9506959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:16:15.14894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:12.226390
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
(dissenting):
I dissent. Although I certainly agree with the majority statements concerning delay in justice as being a detriment to public support for the justice system, I think those statements are misapplied here. The majority attributes the entire 11 months between arrest and trial as delay brought on by the state. Surely this is not correct. The preliminary hearing time was at defendant’s request and possibly to his advantage. Crowded court calendars are a fact, and the defendant’s use of pretrial motions are legitimate but are not chargeable against the state. I fear *390that this Court’s opinion will result in continuous jury terms being required throughout Montana for the benefit of the accused without regard to costs to the taxpayers or whether any prejudice to a fair trial results. My own experience indicates that delay is to the defendant’s advantage rather than prejudice. The old defense play of letting the grass grow green over the grave of the victim will not be enhanced by this decision. I concur in Justice John Conway Harrison’s dissent on issue No. 1.
I would affirm the judgment, but since the majority opinion reverses and dismisses on the issue of speedy trial, the gratuitous observations thereafter on the other issues are dicta only, and I shall not elaborate on my reasoning.