Court Opinion

ID: 7821850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:57:18.813112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:45.458193
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. There is no substantial difference between this case and Divanovich v. State, 273 Ark. 117, 617 S.W. 2d 345 (1981). The defendants, Norton and Divanovich, were jointly charged and filed identical motions for continuances and recusal of the prosecuting attorney. Both filed numerous pleadings, making unreasonable demands on the state for the production of documents. The trial judge continued the case because obviously neither party could be ready for trial. He failed to note on whose motions that the continuances were granted. The final motion to recuse the prosecuting attorney was granted and only because of that action the time exceeded three terms of court. The defendants asked for relief requiring a new prosecutor which required a further delay and they now complain that they were denied a speedy trial. The defendant’s own actions required the delay, a matter he should not be able to use against the state. Two men were charged together, filed identical motions, and were treated exactly the same. One, Divanovich, will go to trial; Norton will go free on this charge. I respectfully dissent. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.