Andruszczak v. State
2017 Ark. App. 183
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Barry Andruszczak was charged with residential burglary and theft after Donna Green’s class ring (from Hope High School) was found in his car following a Louisiana burglary investigation. Trial was set for March 21, 2016.
- On the day of trial the State moved for a two-day continuance and for permission to depose Curtis Baham (a Louisiana resident and material witness) under Ark. Code § 14-22-201, asserting Baham could not travel due to health and his testimony linked a gold crowbar found at Baham’s house to the Greens’ broken door frame.
- The State learned three days earlier that the crowbar at Baham’s house—not the crowbar previously recovered from Andruszczak’s car—matched tool marks at the Greens’ home, and scheduled Baham’s deposition for March 23.
- Defense objected, arguing lack of diligence by the State and constitutional speedy-trial concerns; also asserted on appeal that Baham’s deposition would be inadmissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403 (these evidentiary objections were not preserved on appeal).
- The circuit court granted the continuance and authorized the deposition, finding unavailability and due diligence; Baham’s video deposition was played at trial, forensic testimony tied the gold crowbar to the Greens’ door, and the jury convicted Andruszczak on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the State’s continuance to depose an out-of-state, unavailable witness | State: court should grant continuance for good cause to secure material witness testimony and permitted deposition | Andruszczak: State was not diligent in securing witness; continuance violated speedy-trial and constitutional rights | No abuse of discretion; continuance properly granted where State discovered material evidence days earlier, sought only a short delay, and showed due diligence |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by the continuance | State: no prejudice because independent forensic and investigative evidence linked crowbar, defendant, and victim | Andruszczak: continuance and deposition harmed ability to defend and violated rights | No prejudice shown; forensic evidence and investigator testimony independently established the link |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires a showing that the trial court acted improvidently or without due consideration)
- Hutcherson v. State, 74 Ark. App. 72, 47 S.W.3d 267 (2001) (party is bound on appeal by scope of objections made at trial)
- Wilson v. State, 320 Ark. 142, 895 S.W.2d 524 (1995) (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance where diligence was questioned and affidavit lacking)