State v. Green, 34,148

Background

Zachary Green was arrested Sept. 11, 2012 and charged with multiple felonies (armed robbery with firearm enhancement, escape, felon-in-possession, drug distribution and conspiracy). He remained in custody for much of the pretrial period.
Defense demanded a speedy trial in magistrate court on Oct. 10, 2012; the case was bound over and an information filed Oct. 15, 2012. An initial district court trial date (May 13, 2013) was vacated after a peremptory excusal and reassignment in Dec. 2012.
Little or no case activity occurred for over a year; Green filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial on Dec. 11, 2013 (15 months after arrest) and renewed multiple motions in 2014.
The district court (on reassignment to a third judge) effectively denied Green’s speedy-trial motions; Green sought interlocutory review and appealed that denial.
The Court of Appeals applied the Barker v. Wingo four-factor balancing test (length of delay; reason for delay; assertion of right; prejudice) and found a 23-month delay in an intermediate-complexity case triggered the speedy-trial inquiry and ultimately violated Green’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Green's Argument	Held
Whether 23-month pretrial delay violated the right to a speedy trial	Delay included neutral or only slightly culpable administrative periods; parts of delay were defendant-caused when he declined offered settings; overall factors did not require dismissal	Delay far exceeded the 15-month benchmark for intermediate cases; delay was primarily administrative/negligent on the court/prosecution side; Green repeatedly asserted his right and suffered prejudice	Court: Delay (23 months) crossed presumptive-prejudice threshold; Barker factors overall favor Green; speedy-trial right violated — dismissal ordered on remand
Weight to assign reasons for delay (deliberate vs. negligent/administrative)	Many periods were routine or neutral; some administrative delay but not deliberate; some delay attributable to defendant’s choices	Delay was largely due to administrative failures (judge docketing, reassignment) and prosecutorial lack of diligence in securing settings or transport	Court: Delay was primarily negligent/administrative and therefore weighed against the State (but not as heavily as deliberate delay)
Whether Green sufficiently asserted his speedy-trial right	Early pro forma demand and later motions occurred after threshold; rejecting an offered setting reduces his weight	Green made five written demands and multiple motions; did not acquiesce and persistently sought relief	Court: Assertion factor weighed moderately–heavily in Green’s favor given repeated demands and finding he did not contribute to delay
Whether Green suffered actual prejudice from the delay	State questioned particulars (e.g., alleged confession/video evidence, Alaska custody/convictions, timing of bond reduction requests) and contested some claimed harms	Green submitted sworn affidavits: ~23 months incarceration, familial and economic harm, lost employment opportunities, anxiety/medical treatment, and impairment to defense (memory/witness loss)	Court: Affidavits went largely unchallenged in district court; prejudice established (oppressive incarceration, anxiety, defensive impairment); this factor weighed for Green

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (2009) (New Mexico adopts Barker framework and discusses nature of prejudice)
State v. Spearman, 283 P.3d 272 (2012) (explains deference to district court factual findings and de novo review of Barker balancing)
State v. Montoya, 150 N.M. 415, 259 P.3d 820 (2011) (distinguishes deliberate, negligent/administrative, and valid reasons for delay)
State v. Moreno, 148 N.M. 253, 233 P.3d 782 (2010) (treatment of pro forma demands and effect on assertion factor)
State v. Ochoa, 327 P.3d 1102 (2014) (recognizes prolonged pretrial incarceration as evidence of prejudice)