State v. Brown
2017 NMCA 46
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Walter Ernest Brown was arrested May 26, 2011 for a fatal stabbing occurring May 13, 2011; he faced multiple serious charges including second-degree murder and remained in custody on $250,000 bond.
- Defense counsel demanded a speedy trial shortly after appointment; the case was complex and initially joined with co-defendants.
- The prosecution and defense engaged in extended plea negotiations and multiple continuances; there were periods of judicial unavailability (retirement, vacancy, and a judge later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s).
- Brown was incarcerated pretrial for 33 months until the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered his release on nonmonetary conditions in Brown v. State.
- After a total 42‑month delay from arrest to disposition, the district court dismissed the charges for violation of Brown’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42‑month pretrial delay violated the Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial right | State argued delay did not amount to constitutional violation given complexity, defendant-caused delays, and limited prejudice | Brown argued the length, reasons for delay (many attributable to state), repeated assertions of the right, and substantial prejudice (33 months jailed unlawfully) required dismissal | Court held Barker factors weigh for defendant; dismissal affirmed |
| Proper weighing of Barker factors (length, reasons, assertion, prejudice) | State maintained some delay was reasonable or attributable to defense/complexity, and prejudice was not established | Brown emphasized extraordinary length, state responsibility for much delay, persistent assertion of right, and undue pretrial incarceration/anxiety | Court weighed length heavily for Brown; reasons slightly–moderately for Brown; assertion clearly for Brown; prejudice more than slight—overall violation found |
| Effect of unlawful bail/extended pretrial incarceration on prejudice inquiry | State argued only portion of incarceration was legally improper and prejudice was not shown to be significant relative to charges | Brown relied on New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that bond was improper and that 33 months of incarceration produced substantial prejudice (lost jobs, limited visits, anxiety) | Court accepted that the unlawful lengthy incarceration increased prejudice and weighed in defendant’s favor |
| Whether loss of witness memory or other defense impairment required particularized showing | State asserted no specific showing that lost evidence would have changed result | Brown claimed a witness had a faded memory due to delay but did not specify expected testimony | Court agreed defendant failed to show particularized defense impairment, but held overall prejudice from incarceration and delay was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (framework: length, reasons, assertion, prejudice)
- State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (adopts Barker balancing and explains prejudice interests)
- State v. Serros, 366 P.3d 1121 (N.M. 2016) (defines presumptively prejudicial delay thresholds and weighting)
- State v. Spearman, 283 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2012) (standard of review and deference to factual findings; de novo on balancing)
- State v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2014) (bail/conditions opinion finding district court abused discretion and ordering release)
- State v. Moreno, 233 P.3d 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (bureaucratic indifference and prejudice from delay)
- State v. Lujan, 345 P.3d 1103 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (application of Barker factors in speedy trial context)