State v. Brown, 34,388

Background

Defendant Walter Brown was arrested May 26, 2011 for a May 13, 2011 fatal stabbing and charged with murder and related offenses; bond was set at $250,000.
Defense counsel demanded a speedy trial soon after arraignment; the case was joined with co-defendants and proceeded through plea negotiations, severance, multiple hearings, judge retirement/illness, and a change of presiding judge.
Defendant remained jailed for 33 months (May 2011–Feb 2014) until the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered release on nonmonetary conditions in Brown v. State.
Total delay from arrest to dismissal was 42 months; the district court initially denied dismissal but, after reconsidering in light of the Supreme Court opinion, granted dismissal for speedy trial violation.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed the Barker v. Wingo four-factor test (length, reasons, assertion, prejudice) de novo for the weighting/balance of factors and affirmed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Brown's Argument	Held
Whether 42-month delay violated Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial	Delay was partly attributable to defense (continuances, judge excusals, pending motions); some periods were neutral or in State's favor; any prejudice was not shown adequately	Delay exceeded presumptive threshold; State caused much delay; defendant repeatedly asserted right; prolonged unlawful pretrial incarceration caused substantial prejudice	Violation. All four Barker factors weigh for defendant; dismissal affirmed
Proper weighting of Barker factors (length, reasons, assertion, prejudice)	Some delay periods justified or caused by defense; administrative and plea negotiation delays not heavily state fault	Delay was extraordinary for a complex case; judge unavailability and State inattention support weighing against State; assertion was frequent	Court weighed length heavily for defendant, reasons slightly–moderately for defendant, assertion clearly for defendant, prejudice more-than-slight for defendant
Relevance of unlawful pretrial detention to prejudice analysis	Pretrial detention alleged unlawful only after Supreme Court decision; State contended only a shorter unlawful period should count	Entire 33-month incarceration was attributable to the court’s prior erroneous bond decision and produced substantial anxiety and loss (jobs, family visits)	Court treated the 33 months as substantial prejudice (oppressive and undue); illegality heightened prejudice factor in defendant's favor
Whether impairment of defense (lost/faded witnesses) was shown	State: defendant failed to particularize what exculpatory testimony was lost; any faded memory was speculative	Defendant pointed to a critical witness with faded memory who was unavailable earlier	Court: impairment not proven with particularity; this sub-factor favored State, but overall prejudice still weighed for defendant

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (adopts Barker framework and discusses prejudice interests)
State v. Serros, 366 P.3d 1121 (N.M. 2016) (clarifies presumptively prejudicial benchmarks and weighting for extraordinary delays)
State v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2014) (direct decision on Defendant’s pretrial release; held the bond/conditions were arbitrary and ordered release)
State v. Spearman, 283 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2012) (standard of review: deference to factual findings, de novo on Barker weighing)