293 Ga. 834
Ga.2013Background
- In March 2011 Paulo Ross was indicted for a 2002 murder; he had been arrested in December 2004 and released on bond in February 2005 after a preliminary hearing.
- Ross moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds; after an evidentiary hearing in October 2011 the trial court denied the motion under Barker v. Wingo and Doggett v. United States.
- Ross appealed; his appeal was dismissed in October 2012 for failure to file a brief, returning the case to the trial court.
- In December 2012 Ross sought reconsideration and renewed his speedy-trial claim; the trial court then granted the plea in bar in January 2013, finding the speedy-trial right violated.
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court lacked authority to reconsider its interlocutory denial after the term ended and absent any material change in the evidentiary posture.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding the trial court erred because there was no material change in evidence permitting out-of-term reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may reconsider an interlocutory denial of a speedy-trial motion after the term ends | Ross: passage of time and degradation of evidence justify out-of-term reconsideration and warrant dismissal | State: law-of-the-case and end-of-term rule barred reconsideration absent a material change in evidence | Reversed: no authority to reconsider because record showed no material change in evidentiary posture since the first hearing |
| Whether Ross’s speedy-trial claim warranted dismissal on the merits | Ross: delays and gaps in evidence from passage of time violated constitutional speedy-trial rights | State: prior hearing rejected Barker/Doggett showing; no new evidence or investigation shown at reconsideration | Court did not reach merits because reconsideration was improper; trial court’s plea in bar vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (framework for speedy-trial claim balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay-based due process/speedy-trial doctrine; prejudice from negligence of the government)
- Moon v. State, 287 Ga. 304 (discussing end-of-term rule and changed-evidence exception for reconsideration)
- Ritter v. State, 272 Ga. 551 (trial court retains discretion to modify interlocutory evidentiary rulings pre-judgment)
- Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326 (application of law-of-the-case and reconsideration principles in state appellate context)
- Mojica, 316 Ga. App. 619 (permitting reconsideration of a suppression ruling after earlier denials in certain circumstances)
- Rooney v. State, 217 Ga. App. 850 (end-of-term rule does not rigidly bar reconsideration of bond orders)