State v. Kutkut
2013 Ohio 1442
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- indictÂment for Horvath murder filed Aug. 12, 2005; Kutkut fled to Jordan in July 2004 before indictment
- extradition proceedings began after arrest in Turkey on Aug. 21, 2009 and concluded with return to the U.S. on Aug. 23, 2011
- defense and state presented evidence of extradition process and FBI involvement confirming due diligence
- Kutkut moved to dismiss in Dec. 2011 asserting Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation; trial court denied
- Kutkut pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery; sentenced to 23 years
- on appeal, issue is whether pre-return delay violated constitutional speedy-trial rights; waiver did not moot the speedy-trial claim
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation | State contends delay was tolled by extradition process and due diligence | Kutkut argues prolonged pre-return delay violated speedy-trial rights | No Sixth Amendment violation after Barker analysis weighed against Kutkut |
| Whether, if any violation existed, the guilty plea mooted the speedy-trial issue | State asserts plea does not revive speedy-trial issues | Kutkut contends plea spares appeal on speedy-trial challenge | Plea did not waive constitutional speedy-trial rights; second issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial balancing factors)
- Rayborn v. Scully, 858 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1988) (fugitive status affects speedy-trial analysis)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (lengthy delay requires Barker analysis)
- Sandoval v. United States, 990 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1993) (fugitive status and due diligence considerations)
- State v. Borrero, 8th Dist. No. 82595, 2004-Ohio-4488 (Ohio (Eighth Dist.)) (deference to trial court findings in speedy-trial inquiry)
- State v. Barnes, 8th Dist. No. 90847, 2008-Ohio-5472 (Ohio (Eighth Dist.)) ( Barker analysis applied in speedy-trial context)