Court Opinion

ID: 9769250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:41:54.685303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:21.740201
License: Public Domain

ROBERT L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur in the majority opinion but write only to emphasize two points. Had this been a case where the prosecutor was leaving office and that person alone had prepared the capital murder case and was, therefore, indispensable to the trial of the matter, this would seem to be an exceptional circumstance. However, the record before us does not reflect those facts. Moreover, there appears to have been ample time remaining for the State to try the Frederick Jacobs capital murder case after Tanner’s original trial date on December 13, 1994, as the majority opinion emphasizes. But if the trial court’s choice had been either to try Tanner’s drug case or the Jacobs capital murder case because both were about to violate speedy-trial constraints, then this in my judgment would meet the requirement of an exceptional circumstance. Such, however, was not the case.