State v. David Zimmerman
2014 MT 173
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Zimmerman arrested July 21, 2012 for felony DUI and related offenses; SCRAM alcohol monitoring imposed as condition of release for ~9–10 months; no information filed until January 15, 2013; information filed in District Court after initial Justice Court proceedings never conducted; trial originally set for May 6, 2013 but delayed; Zimmerman asserted speedy-trial rights and the district court denied his motion; the supreme court reverses and dismisses charges with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 289-day pretrial delay violate the right to a speedy trial? | State caused delay; delay prejudiced Zimmerman. | Delay was not the State’s fault and prejudiced defendant. | Yes, violation established after balancing factors. |
| Should the 178 days pre-information delay be attributed to the State and the 111 days after information to the court, affecting balancing? | State responsible for majority of delay; attribution correct. | Zimmerman contributed to delay by requesting a continuance. | All 289 days attributed to the State; delay weighs against State. |
| Was Zimmerman’s prejudice shown to impair defense or cause anxiety, financial hardship, and liberty restrictions? | SCRAM costs, mental health impact, and employment disruption show prejudice. | Prejudice not shown beyond general impacts of delay. | Yes, prejudice shown; defense impairment not required to prove impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariegwe v. State, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815 (2007 MT) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing; deference to trial-court findings; key precedent on attribution and prejudice)
- Couture v. State, 357 Mont. 398, 240 P.3d 987 (2010 MT) (four-factor test; timing and causal attribution in delays; relevance to prejudice)
- Stops v. State, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811 (2013 MT) (speedy-trial framework; consideration of defendant’s responses and prejudice)
- Morrisey v. State, 351 Mont. 144, 214 P.3d 708 (2009 MT) (delay length and tolerance; weight of factors in simple offenses)
- Blair v. State, 324 Mont. 444, 103 P.3d 538 (2004 MT) (defendant not obligated to ensure diligent prosecution; State must act in timely manner)
- Billman v. State, 346 Mont. 118, 194 P.3d 58 (2008 MT) (tolerable delay for simple offenses; factor considerations on delay)