146 So. 3d 681
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Charging information filed Dec 3, 2004 for possession of stolen property over $1,000.
- Arrest on Feb 6, 2007; arraignment Feb 15, 2007; prelim and suppression July 30, 2007 with denial; trial date set Aug 22, 2007.
- Court scheduled motions hearing after an error in trial date; defendant failed to appear Oct 5, 2007; continued pretrial and remand due to drug test.
- Multiple failures to appear and bond-forfeiture proceedings from Oct 2007 through Jan 8, 2008 culminate in a lengthy delay.
- From Feb 6, 2007 to Feb 7, 2013, defendant remained largely out of court; thereafter hearings and continuances continued, leading to a May 24, 2013 speedy-trial motion.
- Trial court quashed the bill of information; appellate court reverses, holding no constitutional speedy-trial violation and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay violated the speedy-trial rights under Barker factors | State contends delay was not violative; petition argues long delay prejudicial | Pierre argues prolonged delay violated speedy-trial rights | No; trial court abused discretion; remanded for proceedings |
| Who bears responsibility for the delay under Barker factors | State claims delays due to defendant and scheduling errors | Pierre argues state negligence and failure to move proceedings | State did not carry sole responsibility; analysis favoring defendant’s rights on Barker factors |
| Whether the delay length was presumptively prejudicial | Delay reached nine-and-a-half years, presumptively prejudicial | Delay not solely attributable to state; some pauses due to scheduling | Delay considered presumptively prejudicial for Barker factor one |
| Whether defendant asserted the speedy-trial right in a timely manner | State argues defendant failed to assert sooner | Pierre had opportunity during incarceration to file; later filing was timely | Third Barker factor not satisfied as defendant did not timely assert prior to May 24, 2013 |
| Whether prejudice resulted from the delay | State failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence; prejudice shown | No specific prejudice shown beyond general delay | Fourth Barker factor did not support quashing; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (established four-factor speedy-trial test)
- State v. Romar, 985 So.2d 722 (La. 2008) (affirmative duty of state to search for delinquent defendant not imposed; interruptions by schedule errors treated as deflecting duty)
- State v. Reaves, 376 So.2d 136 (La. 1979) (adopted Barker factors in Louisiana context)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) (delay can be presumptively prejudicial when government-caused)
- Ervin, 9 So.3d 303 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (state delays due to inmate transport; improper reliance on heightened state responsibility)
- Romar, 985 So.2d 722 (La. 2008) (clarified La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A) duties and public-notice interruptions)
- Baptiste, 38 So.3d 247 (La. 2010) (no affirmative duty to monitor arrest warrants across jurisdictions)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1967) (related to speedy-trial due-process concerns)