Kemp v. State
314 Ga. App. 327
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kemp was arrested on November 3, 2007 for shooting two individuals; indictment followed on November 13, 2007; released on bond November 19, 2007; arraigned December 3, 2007; discovery furnished February 25, 2008; hearings on April 7 and June 23, 2008 were not attended by either party; case remained on trial calendar with motions to be heard at trial.
- Case appeared on trial calendar June 14, 2010; Kemp’s counsel filed a leave of absence during part of the June 2010 calendar; State filed supplemental discovery and Kemp was served with a witness list in July 2010.
- In November 2010, the State reindicted Kemp on original charges plus aggravated battery; trial court denied Kemp’s speedy-trial motion on April 4, 2011; Kemp appealed.
- Trial court conducted Barker-Doggett framework but made factual/legal errors in calculating delay length, presumptive prejudice, and attributing delay to Kemp vs the State.
- On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order, held the delay presumptively prejudicial, and remanded for proper Barker-Doggett analysis with correct findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay was presumptively prejudicial | Kemp argues the 41-month delay is presumptively prejudicial. | State contends delay was not improperly long given docket issues. | Yes; delay presumptively prejudicial and triggers Barker-Doggett analysis. |
| Proper Barker-Doggett analysis of the delay | Kemp contends factors weigh in his favor due to State-caused delays. | State argues delays were due to docket and defense scheduling; Kemp did not minimize delay. | Trial court erred; factors misweighed and required remand for correct analysis. |
| Attribution of delay to State vs. Kemp | Delay primarily caused by prosecutorial and court scheduling issues. | Defense scheduling issues contributed but State bore most responsibility. | Court erred in weighting Kemp’s responsibility; remand required with proper allocation. |
| Effect of assertion of the speedy-trial right and prejudice shown | Defense asserts right earlier; experienced prejudice due to delay. | Delay asserted late; defendant bears responsibility for asserting the right. | Presumption of prejudice existed but actual prejudice not demonstrated; still requires remand for proper weighing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor Barker–Doggett test for speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (connected to balancing factors and prejudice considerations)
- Hayes v. State, 298 Ga.App. 338 (2009) (12-month delay presumptively prejudicial; governs GA analysis)
- Stewart v. State, 310 Ga.App. 551 (2011) (GA application of Barker–Doggett framework)
- Brillon v. United States, 556 U.S. 81 (2009) (delay caused by defense can be weighed against defendant; government accountability for systemic delays)