Moore v. State
314 Ga. App. 219
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Moore was charged with sexual offenses involving his stepdaughter; arrest April 19, 2004, and counsel appointed soon after; indictment delayed until November 29, 2007 (over 43 months).
- Loss of key investigative/MEDICAL examination files by authorities occurred during the delay, hindering defense.
- First indictment led to plea in bar and later a special demurrer; demurrer untimely denied on remand.
- On remand, new indictment charged statutory rape, child molestation, false imprisonment; speedy trial demand filed December 16, 2009.
- Trial court conducted Barker-Doggett analysis; court found presumptively prejudicial delay but ultimately denied dismissal; Moores appeal followed.
- This is the third appellate review (Moore I and Moore II) addressing whether the speedy trial right was violated and whether delay prejudiced the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay was presumptively prejudicial. | Moore argues delay was long and prejudicial. | State contends Barker factors weigh in its favor, not Moor e. | Delay presumptively prejudicial; Barker analysis required. |
| Whether the Barker factors were properly weighed. | Moore contends the court failed to weigh length of delay. | State contends factors weighed, including benign delay. | Trial court erred in omitting length-of-delay weight but not dispositive. |
| Whether the delay was caused by the state's negligence or intentional acts. | Delay largely due to state neglect; intent not shown. | State asserts negligence, not intentional delay. | Delay weighed against state but not shown intentional. |
| Whether Moore timely asserted his right to speedy trial. | Moore asserted speedy-trial rights after reindictment. | Timely assertion acknowledged by court. | Moore timely asserted right; factor weighed in favor of Moore. |
| Whether there was actual prejudice to Moore's defense. | Loss of files and potential evidence could impair defense. | No substantial impairment shown; prior law binding that files not impairment. | No actual impairment proven; prejudice not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (framework for speedy trial analysis (presumption and four-factor test))
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice; lengthy delays trigger Barker analysis)
- Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52 (2008) (two-stage Barker-Doggett analysis establishment of presumptive prejudice)
- State v. Redding, 274 Ga. 831 (2002) (four Barker factors articulation; weighing guide)
- Brannen v. State, 274 Ga. 454 (2001) (Barker factors and defense prejudice assessment)
- Arbegast v. State, 301 Ga.App. 462 (2009) (procedural warning on factor weighting in Barker analysis)
- Moore v. State, 294 Ga.App. 570; 669 S.E.2d 498 (2008) (Moore I—delay and blame for loss of files; early holding binding precedent)
- Moore v. State, 309 Ga.App. 519; 710 S.E.2d 692 (2011) (Moore II—remand to enter findings; speedy-trial denial affirmed on remand)