Harrison v. State
311 Ga. App. 787
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Harrison was arrested in Florida, extradited, and then arrested in Mississippi on November 29, 2006 based on accusations involving the same alleged victim.
- Georgia posted arrest warrants on December 6-7, 2006 and sought holds on Harrison while Forsyth County investigated the offenses.
- Harrison remained incarcerated in Mississippi for about two years; in August 2008 a Mississippi ADA indicated possible plea negotiations with Georgia regarding the same victim.
- A Mississippi circuit court granted nolle prosequi on September 25, 2008; Harrison was extradited to Georgia after the Mississippi case resolved, with warrants executed November 4, 2008.
- Bond was granted in Forsyth County on January 9, 2009, but Harrison could not post it; he sought bond reductions twice, which were denied.
- Harrison filed a plea in bar on July 9, 2010 alleging unconstitutional delay; a grand jury indicted him three days later on July 12, 2010; trial court held hearings in August and September 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay from November 2008 to indictment was presumptively prejudicial | Harrison argues delay was prejudicial under Barker-Doggett. | State contends delay not prejudicial given factors and lack of deliberate state action. | Delay presumptively prejudicial; but weighed with Barker-Doggett factors and not found a constitutional violation. |
| Whether the government caused or tolerated the delay more than Harrison | Delay was partly due to administrative factors and plea negotiations, implying government responsibility. | Delay resulted from administrative turnover and plea expectations, not deliberate obstruction. | No abuse of discretion; administrative turnover and plea considerations weighed against Harrison. |
| Whether Harrison timely asserted the speedy-trial right | Harrison asserted after substantial delay; timely assertion favored Balancing. | Delay weighs against defendant because assertion occurred late. | Assertion weighed against Harrison; failure to timely demand weighed against him. |
| Whether Harrison suffered actual prejudice to his defense | Delay caused impairment to defense and memory loss; oppressive pretrial incarceration asserted. | No concrete impairment shown; conditions not sufficiently oppressive; memories not shown to be substantially limited. | Prejudice weighed heavily against Harrison but not shown as sufficient to require relief; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court properly balanced the four Barker-Doggett factors | All factors support relief due to presumptive prejudice. | Balancing favors the State; no speedy-trial violation. | Court did not abuse its discretion; speedy-trial rights not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (established Barker-Doggett four-factor test for speedy-trial analysis)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice from lengthy delay with government-caused delay)
- Brewington v. State, 288 Ga. 520 (2011) (presumptive prejudice and factor weighting in Georgia speedy-trial cases)
- Ward v. State, 311 Ga. App. 425 (2011) (context on prejudice and delay factors in Georgia appellate review)
- Jackson v. State, 272 Ga. 782 (2000) (prejudice analysis under Barker-Doggett framework)
- Ditman v. State, 280 Ga. App. 467 (2006) (evidence and prejudice considerations in delay cases)
- Lambert v. State, 302 Ga. App. 573 (2010) (memory fading and need for specific showing of prejudice)