Parker v. State, 965 N.E.2d 50

Parker was charged with robbery, a Class B felony, based on an alleged January 2011 incident involving an attempt to take Hall's X-box at gunpoint.
Parker requested a speedy trial on February 10, 2011; trial initially set for April 7, 2011.
The State moved for a continuance on April 4, 2011; the court granted, moving trial to April 21, 2011 (the 70th day).
On April 21, 2011, the State sought another continuance; the court granted and Parker was released on his own recognizance.
The trial was subsequently rescheduled to July 6, 2011; a jury trial occurred then with Parker presenting a defense theory that marijuana, not an X-box, was the subject of the transaction.
The court allowed deposition testimony in lieu of live Hall testimony and later excluded references to marijuana, limiting Parker’s defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial rights under Crim. R. 4(B).	Parker argues 4(B) was violated when trial did not occur within 70 days.	State contends Parker's release ended 4(B) protections, so no violation.	Not violated; release ended 4(B) protections, defenses moved to 4(C).
Right to present a defense.	Parker argues trial court improperly restricted his defense by excluding marijuana reference.	State argues evidence was highly prejudicial and excluded under Evid. R. 403.	Not violated; court did not abuse discretion in excluding marijuana-specific references.

Williams v. State, 631 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. 1994) (Crim. R. 4(B) purpose; post-release rights bar further benefit under 4(B))
Hampton v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind.App. 2001) (waiver of speedy-trial review on appeal for pre-trial objections)
Payne v. State, 854 N.E.2d 7 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings under Rule 403)
Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. 2001) (right to present a defense not absolute; must follow evidentiary rules)
Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1998) (procedural rules governing admissibility to assure fairness and reliability)