State v. Green, 34,148

Background

Zachary Green was arrested Sept. 11, 2012 and charged with multiple felonies in Valencia County district court; he remained incarcerated pretrial for 23 months.
Defense made an initial speedy-trial demand on Oct. 10, 2012; an information was filed Oct. 15, 2012 and arraignment occurred Nov. 19, 2012 with an initial trial date set for May 13, 2013.
Case dockets were disrupted by a peremptory judicial excusal/ reassignment in Dec. 2012, after which the case received little action for over a year; multiple motions to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial right were filed beginning Dec. 2013.
The district court orally denied the speedy-trial motion, offered an interlocutory appeal or a later trial setting, and ultimately entered a written order denying dismissal (Sept. 4, 2014, later amended Oct. 8, 2014).
On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals applied the Barker v. Wingo four-factor test (length, reason, assertion, prejudice) and concluded all factors favored Green, holding his Sixth Amendment/N.M. Constitution speedy-trial right was violated and ordering dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Green)	Held
Whether the 23‑month pretrial delay violated the right to a speedy trial such that dismissal is required	Delay included neutral and administrative components; some delays attributable to defendant’s actions (rejecting offered setting); overall not severe enough to warrant dismissal	23‑month incarceration without timely settings, repeated demands for trial, administrative/negligent delay by court and prosecution produced undue prejudice; dismissal required	Court: Delay exceeded the 15‑month threshold for intermediate complexity; balancing Barker factors, all tilt in defendant’s favor; speedy‑trial violation found and dismissal ordered
Weight of the length-of-delay factor	Argued length should be given only slight weight against the State	Argued 23 months (well beyond the 15‑month benchmark) weighs at least moderately against the State	Court: Case is of intermediate complexity; 23 months triggers presumptive prejudice and weighs slightly to moderately against the State
Proper allocation of delay (reasons for delay)	Many months were neutral or caused by institutional factors; some delays were defendant-related (rejecting a setting)	Delay was primarily due to administrative/negligent failures (judge docketing, prosecution diligence) and so weighs against the State	Court: Delay was principally administrative/negligent (bench docketing failures, lack of settings) and thus weighs against the State (not heavily, but against the prosecution)
Actual prejudice and assertion of the right	State contested particularized prejudice (pointing to prior Alaska convictions/holds, alleged confessions/video evidence, and timing of defendant’s bond requests)	Defendant made multiple timely assertions of the right and presented unchallenged affidavits showing oppressive incarceration, family hardship, lost employment opportunities, anxiety, and impairment of defense (memory/witness access)	Court: Defendant asserted the right repeatedly; affidavits adopted by the court and not meaningfully challenged. Prejudice found (familial, economic, anxiety, impairment). This factor favors defendant

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (formulated the four-factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038 (N.M. 2009) (discusses Sixth Amendment and the three interests comprising prejudice analysis)
State v. Spearman, 2012-NMSC-023 (N.M. 2012) (applies Barker balancing and standard of review for speedy‑trial rulings)
State v. Montoya, 150 N.M. 415 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (allocates weight to types of delay: deliberate, negligent/administrative, valid reasons)
State v. Ochoa, 327 P.3d 1102 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (recognized prejudice from prolonged pretrial incarceration)
State v. Moreno, 148 N.M. 253 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses effect of multiple assertions and prejudice from long pretrial detention)