Richardson v. State
318 Ga. App. 155
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Richardson arrested Jan. 20, 2007 for child molestation and related charges; bond released Jan. 23, 2007; grand jury indicted him Feb. 6, 2007.
- Richardson moved for discovery; discovery materials partially produced in June 2007; additional discovery not provided included scene photos, surveillance video, and victim interview.
- Richardson filed a motion to discharge and acquit on speedy-trial grounds July 14, 2008.
- Suppl. discovery provided crime-scene photos and interview March 29, 2010; surveillance video not produced.
- Trial court entered original speedy-trial denial Aug. 24, 2010; on remand Sept. 29, 2011 entered a new order applying Barker-Doggett framework; appellate vacated and remanded for proper order.
- Court ultimately vacates the latest order and remands for reconsideration due to miscalculation of delay length and failure to consider all delay periods and discovery issues; clock continues to run until a third written Barker-Doggett order is entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial delay was presumptively prejudicial | Richardson argues delay length was miscalculated and was longer, establishing presumptive prejudice. | State contends delay was within permissible range given docket conditions. | Remanded for reconsideration; delay period miscalculated but presumptive prejudice exists. |
| How long the pretrial delay actually lasted for Barker-Doggett analysis | Delay should run from arrest to the remand order issuing a new Barker-Doggett analysis, adding ~13 months. | Delay should be measured by the court’s original calculation. | Remand to recalculate including the 13 months between orders. |
| Whether discovery delays can mitigate the defendant’s assertion of the speedy-trial right | State’s late discovery could mitigate Richardson’s assertion of the speedy-trial right. | Discovery issues should not mitigate the defendant’s delay. | Remand to consider discovery delays as a potential mitigating factor. |
| Whether Richardson suffered undue anxiety or concern prejudicing the defense | Loss of law-enforcement opportunities evidence of anxiety; trial court must consider. | Absent unusual showing, anxiety not determinative; employment context mitigates. | Remand to reevaluate the prejudice factor in light of anxiety and lengthy delay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (framework for speedy-trial analysis (two-tier, Barker-Doggett factors))
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumption of prejudice strengthens over time; weighing delays)
- Goddard v. State, 315 Ga. App. 868 (2012) (remand when trial court misapplies Barker-Doggett and fails to consider all delay periods)
- Ward v. State, 311 Ga. App. 425 (2011) (presumptive prejudice; uncommonly long delay weighed against State)
- Phan v. State, 290 Ga. 588 (2012) (delay calculation when no trial has occurred)