McBride v. State
61 So. 3d 138
| Miss. | 2011Background
- McBride was indicted for sexual battery of his daughter under 14, charging conduct between January 2002 and December 2005 in Coahoma County.
- Indictment issued May 30, 2006; McBride was arrested August 2006 and assigned a court-appointed attorney.
- Trial was repeatedly reset; trial finally commenced February 19, 2008.
- McBride filed pro se motions for directed verdicts alleging speedy-trial violations and other rights violations; pretrial hearings denied.
- Trial evidence included the victim’s testimony of two incidents and DHS/counselor testimony; McBride was convicted and sentenced to 25 years.
- Trial court conducted Barker v. Wingo analysis on the speedy-trial claim and found no constitutional violation; McBride appealed to Mississippi Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McBride’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated | McBride asserts delay violated Barker factors and prejudiced defense | State contends delay not prejudicial and factors weighed against violation | No constitutional speedy-trial violation affirmed |
| Whether McBride’s statutory right to a speedy trial was violated | McBride argues 270-day deadline violated | State contends waiver by delay; no prejudice shown | Statutory right waived; no prejudicial delay proven; no dismissal required |
| Whether the evidence supported the charged sexual battery beyond a reasonable doubt | Dates in indictment/offense-tracking instruction not matched trial proof | Evidence within reasonable limits near the timeframe; no fatal variance | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test guiding analysis)
- Guice v. State, 952 So.2d 129 (Miss. 2007) (statutory speedy-trial prejudice required; waiver principles discussed)
- Daniels v. State, 742 So.2d 1140 (Miss. 1999) (time-of-offense variance and reasonable-limits concept)
- United States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2007) (indictment with 'on or about' language; reasonable near dates acceptable)
- Cochran v. United States, 697 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1983) (reasonable limits for date variance to avoid prejudice)
- Real v. Shannon, 600 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2010) (date variance guidance in indictments with broad time frames)