STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JAMES ARTHUR COUTURE, Defendant and Appellant.
No. DA 09-0427.
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA
Submitted on Briefs April 8, 2010. Decided September 14, 2010.
2010 MT 201 | 357 Mont. 398 | 240 P.3d 987
For Appellee: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Matthew T. Cochenour, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Mitch Young, Lake County Attorney, Polson.
¶1 James A. Couture was convicted in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, of deliberate homicide and two counts of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Couture shot and killed Daniel McLeod on or about May 2, 2004 (the factual basis of the deliberate homicide conviction). He then threw McLeod‘s body in the Flathead River and disposed of the gun used to kill McLeod (the factual bases of the tampering convictions). McLeod‘s body was found May 7; Couture was arrested May 17; and the State filed the Information May 24. Couture‘s trial began November 27, 2006, 924 days after his arrest. He remained in custody this entire time.
¶3 Couture‘s speedy trial claim is premised on the nearly 31-month delay in bringing him to trial. The record covering that period is extensive, due to a seemingly endless stream of continuances and delays over the two and a half years. Having carefully reviewed that procedural history, we conclude that Couture‘s right to a speedy trial was not violated. However, that being said, the glacial pace at which this case wended its way through the District Court is of serious
I. Arrest to Arraignment (May 17 to Sept. 9, 2004; 115 days)
¶4 As noted, Couture was arrested on May 17, 2004. He made his initial appearance in Lake County Justice Court on May 18, and Larry Nistler was appointed to represent him on May 19. The court declined to set bail due to the nature of the charge (deliberate homicide), and Couture never filed a motion to set bail during the pretrial period. On May 27, the date set for arraignment in District Court, Nistler informed the court that he wanted to obtain a mental health evaluation of Couture before Couture entered his pleas. See
¶5 A number of continuances followed—June 10 to July 1 to July 15 to August 12 to August 26 to September 9—all at Couture‘s request, and all related to his efforts to schedule and obtain the mental health evaluation and then discuss the report with counsel, review his rights, and decide on a plea. Ultimately, Couture was found fit to proceed, and on September 9, 2004, he entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The court then proposed to set an accelerated omnibus hearing for September 23; however, due to the court‘s policy on plea agreements (described below), Nistler stated that he would not be ready on that date. The court thus set the omnibus hearing for October 7.
II. The District Court‘s Policies on Trial Dates and Plea Agreements
¶6 The Twentieth Judicial District Court has a trial setting procedure which, in conjunction with its plea agreement policy,
¶7 The District Court‘s consideration of plea agreements, in turn, is controlled by the omnibus hearing. If a plea agreement is reached before the omnibus hearing, then the court either will accept the plea agreement and be bound by it, or will allow the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement if it is not acceptable to the court. But after the omnibus hearing, the court does not treat any subsequently negotiated plea agreement as binding on the court, and the defendant is not allowed to withdraw his guilty plea solely because the court imposes a sentence different from the one recommended in the plea agreement. As a result, there is a built-in incentive for a defendant to exhaust all possibilities of a plea agreement with the State before the omnibus hearing. As Nistler later explained at the speedy trial hearing, “once you go through omnibus, you have to advise your client that there are no guarantees anymore, now the plea agreement may not be worth the paper it‘s written on.” Thus, in essence, “you‘ve got a deadline at omnibus. Once you cross that threshold, you‘re going to trial.” Nistler noted that he had seen some “disastrous consequences” when counsel proceeded through omnibus and then attempted to settle the case. For this reason, he stated, the court‘s policy “is something that I bear in mind in handling cases. Many times I may even get crosswise with the judges because I‘ll continue omnibuses multiple times. But until you rule out a plea agreement as an option, you are
¶8 The upshot of the District Court‘s policies on trial dates and plea agreements, therefore, is this: Until plea negotiations are exhausted, the defendant repeatedly seeks continuances of the omnibus hearing, and the court routinely grants them; and each continuance of the omnibus hearing, in turn, acts as a de facto continuance of the trial date. Bottom line: No firm trial date is set until the defendant and the State rule out the possibility of a plea agreement. Of course, that could take months—or even years—since plea negotiations may be ongoing until discovery, investigations, testing, and interviews have all been completed. Hence, the District Court‘s policies, in tandem, theoretically may result in an indefinite postponement of the setting of the first trial date.
III. Investigation and Plea Negotiations (Sept. 9, 2004, to Jan. 27, 2005; 140 days)
¶9 As noted, the District Court set the omnibus hearing for October 7, 2004. On that date, Nistler informed the court that he and the prosecutor had just begun discussing a plea agreement. In addition, he stated that before he could advise the court on whether there was going to be a plea agreement, he needed an investigator to pursue some leads. He stated that he would be filing a motion to fund the investigator, and he suggested that the omnibus hearing be continued for a month. The prosecutor did not object, and the court reset the hearing for November 12.
¶10 On November 12, Nistler reported that he had had “tentative discussions” with the State concerning a plea offer. In addition, he reported that the individual he uses for major felony investigations had not been available until just recently due to a homicide investigation in Cascade County. Nistler requested a continuance of the omnibus hearing for another month. The prosecutor did not object, and the court reset the hearing for December 9.
¶11 On December 9, Nistler reported that the investigation was still in progress and that he was waiting for the State to reduce its plea proposal to writing. He requested two additional weeks. The court, however, stated that it was “concerned, obviously, that this case has been pending for a significant period of time.” In response, Nistler contended that much of the delay thus far was attributable to obtaining the psychological evaluation through the State Hospital prior to arraignment. In addition, the prosecutor stated that he did not
¶12 On December 23, Nistler requested a four-week continuance for the investigator to complete his review of the case. He indicated that “this would be the last delay that would be needed.” The court agreed to grant the continuance on the condition that Couture file a speedy trial waiver. The prosecutor noted that he would not object to a continuance, and the court then reset the omnibus hearing for January 20, 2005. Couture‘s waiver, filed January 3, did not specify the period covered. It simply recited that “additional time” was needed “to allow his attorney to fully review the evidence and interview witnesses in his case.”
¶13 On January 20, Nistler reported that the prosecutor had made a tentative plea offer. Citing the court‘s plea agreement policy, he requested a one-week continuance so that the prosecutor could reduce the offer to writing and Nistler and Couture could then review it before the omnibus hearing and “make certain that that is his intent to go to trial with no offer on the table.” A week later, on January 27, Nistler informed the court that Couture would not be accepting the State‘s offer and that “[w]e have exhausted the plea proposal process at this point.” Thus far, 255 days had passed since Couture‘s arrest.
IV. New Defense Theory and New Counsel (Jan. 27 to June 16, 2005; 140 days)
¶14 Although the plea proposal process had been exhausted, Nistler indicated that he could not move forward with the omnibus hearing because Couture had “just recently for the first time” asked him to pursue a mental state or mitigation defense. To that end, Nistler requested funding for an independent assessment by a private psychiatrist to ascertain whether such a defense was plausible. The court raised the issue of speedy trial, and so Nistler had Couture acknowledge on the record that the time spent investigating his mental state defense (which Nistler had estimated would take six to eight weeks) could not be held against the State for speedy trial purposes. The prosecutor indicated that he did not object, noting that “this being a homicide case, I am not going to stand in the way of the defendant exploring all possibilities.” The court echoed this view and agreed to continue the hearing. A status conference was set for March
¶15 At the status conference, Nistler stated that he had made four separate requests for a mental evaluation of Couture through Dr. William Stratford‘s office, but “apparently I picked the busiest psychiatrist in western Montana and accordingly I haven‘t been able to get his confirmation until yesterday.” Nistler confirmed that Couture “has rejected any plea proposals, and it appears that the probability is great that it‘s headed to trial.” But he contended that the separate mental health evaluation needed to be completed before they could proceed with the omnibus hearing. He explained that the evaluation was necessary in order to review any potential defenses in the case and also to determine Couture‘s fitness to proceed. Regarding the latter point, Nistler asserted that Couture had “deteriorated” since the previous evaluation by the State Hospital. He thus requested a continuance of one month, to which the prosecutor did not object. The court reset the matter for April 14.
¶16 On April 14, Nistler again noted that Couture “did not wish to accept the plea proposals from the State and wanted this matter to proceed to trial,” where “the primary defense would be a mental defense.” However, Dr. Stratford had not yet issued his final report on Couture. Therefore, Nistler suggested a two-week continuance, to which the prosecutor did not object, and the court accordingly set the omnibus hearing for April 28. But on April 28, and again on May 5, Nistler obtained further continuances because Dr. Stratford still had not issued his report. In both instances, the court pointed out that a trial date of June 13 was available, and the court proposed to set trial for that date, which meant that the omnibus hearing needed to be held in May. See
¶17 In the interim, the court received a letter from Couture on May 10 requesting a hearing to seek new counsel. The court considered this request at the May 19 hearing, at which time Nistler and Couture explained the basis of Couture‘s complaint. In summary, Couture felt that Nistler had not been diligent in preparing a defense, and he believed that Nistler could not provide effective representation due to his heavy caseload. Couture also was dissatisfied with the findings and assistance they had received from the investigator and the psychiatrist. Moreover, Couture and Nistler disagreed on strategy and whether the case should go to trial. Nistler stated that they were at a “fundamental impasse” in that Couture did not want to seek a plea
¶18 The District Court appointed Rebecca Dupuis on June 13. At a status conference held June 16, Dupuis stated that she and Couture had met briefly and agreed to request an omnibus hearing in August. In addition, she noted that Couture had told her “to take as much time as I need” in preparing his defense and that he understood such delay would be attributable to him for speedy trial purposes. The prosecutor did not object to setting the omnibus hearing for August 11 but noted that the family of the victim had been “extremely distraught over the delays in this case” and that, for this reason, he likely would be objecting to any further delays. At this point (June 16, 2005), 395 days had passed since Couture‘s arrest, and 280 days had passed since he entered his not guilty pleas. No trial date had been set, and the parties had not yet gone through the omnibus hearing, which is supposed to occur “[w]ithin a reasonable time following the entry of a not guilty plea but not less than 30 days before trial.”
V. Discovery/Suppression Issue, Act I; Omnibus Hearing; and First Trial Setting (June 16 to Oct. 27, 2005; 133 days)
¶19 In the interim between the June 16 conference and the August 11 hearing, Dupuis reviewed the case file transferred to her by Nistler and saw that Nistler had sent a letter to the Lake County Attorney on May 20, 2004, requesting discovery. The Lake County Attorney‘s Office, which has an open-file policy, provided the defense with a copy of its file on Couture. But in reading through the reports of the detectives who had investigated the case, Dupuis realized that certain discoverable items were not contained in the County Attorney‘s file and had not otherwise been provided. Most of these items, it turns out, had been in the possession of the Lake County Sheriff‘s Office since
¶20 At the scheduled omnibus hearing on August 11, the prosecution and the defense stated that they were not prepared to proceed due to the foregoing discovery issue. The court therefore reset the hearing for September 1. In the meantime, the prosecutor filed an objection to the motion for sanctions. He explained that after Dupuis filed her initial motion for discovery, most of the requested items were located at the Lake County Sheriff‘s Office or at the State Crime Lab but that, “through oversight,” he had failed to ensure that those items were provided to the defense. Consequently, on receiving the motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, the prosecutor arranged for delivery of all the requested discovery, with one exception: the application for search warrant and the search warrant, neither of which could be located. The prosecutor explained that the lead detective on the case had become ill and unable to work at the Sheriff‘s Office and, thus, had taken some files home to work on them there. Later, in February 2005, the detective succumbed to his illness and died without returning to the Sheriff‘s Office. As a result, “the Couture file was not compiled and stored in the manner that he normally prepared such cases.” Following the defense‘s discovery request, officers searched the detective‘s home but were unable to locate the search warrant or the application.
¶21 At the outset of the September 1 hearing, the District Court granted the motion to compel discovery and then turned to the issue of sanctions. By this date, the defense had received all the requested discovery except the search warrant application and the search warrant. Thus, while noting “significant concerns” over the discovery issue, the court chose not to impose sanctions on the State with regard to the items which had been provided, although they were tardy. As for
¶22 The State filed its brief on September 21, which obviously left the defense without adequate time to file its response. Thus, the court again continued the hearing, and this time imposed deadlines: October 5 for the defense‘s response, October 24 for the State‘s reply, and October 27 for the omnibus hearing. Once the parties’ briefing was complete, the court quickly issued its decision on October 26, thus eliminating the suppression issue as a ground for further delaying omnibus. In summary, the court observed that it could not review the sufficiency of the search warrant application because no record exists of the application, the search warrant, or the information given to the magistrate who made the initial probable cause determination—all of which the State had admittedly lost. The court concluded that “[t]he record, evidence, argument and State‘s legal authority are woefully insufficient,” and the court therefore suppressed “[t]he evidence obtained from the May 17, 2004 search warrant and application.”
¶23 The next day (October 27), the court and the parties proceeded, at long last, with the omnibus hearing—nearly 14 months after Couture‘s arraignment. Notably, Dupuis gave notice that Couture would not be relying on a defense of mental disease or defect. The court set trial for January 9, 2006 (the first trial setting). At this point (October 27, 2005), Couture‘s case was 528 days old.
VI. Discovery/Suppression Issue, Act II; New Counsel; Further Investigation; and Four New Trial Settings (Oct. 27, 2005, to July 17, 2006; 263 days)
¶24 The same day that the District Court issued its order suppressing
¶25 Meanwhile, Dupuis was charged criminally in an unrelated matter and thus could not represent Couture any longer. The District Court apprised Couture of the situation at the November 3 hearing and, with the specific intent of minimizing any further delay, appointed two attorneys, Ben Anciaux and John Putikka, to take over Couture‘s defense. The court continued the “clarification” matter for a week to allow Anciaux and Putikka to get up to speed with the case, and set a status conference for November 10. Three further continuances followed (November 10 to November 17 to December 1 to December 8) due to the fact that Dupuis had not yet turned over to Anciaux and Putikka her complete file on Couture. The court issued an order directing her to deliver the file.
¶26 On December 8, Anciaux reported that he now had the complete file but that the January 9 trial date was unfeasible. He stated that Couture had agreed to file a speedy trial waiver “for the purpose of Mr. Putikka and myself getting up to speed and replying to” the prosecutor‘s motion for clarification, and he noted that this suppression-related issue needed to be resolved before the case could go to trial. The court agreed to a continuance and set a scheduling conference for December 15. Furthermore, despite Anciaux‘s apparent readiness to waive his client‘s right to a speedy trial, the court stated that it would not require a waiver in this instance because the delay at issue had not been created by Couture, but rather by actions of Dupuis over which Couture had no control.
¶27 Pursuant to discussions at the December 15 scheduling conference, the District Court set January 19, 2006, as the deadline for the defense‘s response to the prosecutor‘s motion for clarification. The court also set an omnibus hearing for January 19 so that Anciaux and Putikka could review the original Omnibus Order (adopted during
¶28 On January 19, however, Anciaux advised the court that he, Putikka, and Couture had “come to the conclusion that there‘s a number of things that we need to investigate before we will be adequately prepared to negotiate pleas, go through and decide whether an omnibus is complete in the file, what additional motions are necessary, and basically just be prepared to move forward in this case.” To that end, Anciaux requested a private investigator at State expense, and he asked the court to bump all scheduled hearings back one month and to vacate the February 27 trial date. He acknowledged that Couture was “reluctant” to agree to a continuance, but he explained that he and Putikka “don‘t believe that we can be adequately prepared to represent him on that date.” Anciaux noted that Couture would provide a speedy trial waiver, but the court stated that it would not require a waiver on this occasion “because it was his previous counsel the Court had appointed that created some of the delay in this matter.” The court observed that it wanted to get the case to trial “as rapidly as possible” but also wanted to make sure that “the parties have sufficient time to come up to speed and to evaluate where we are in this case given the background of this matter.” Thus, the court continued the matter for four weeks (to February 16) and set February 21 as the deadline for filing motions, March 20 as the motions hearing, and April 24 as the next trial date (the third trial setting).
¶29 But at the February 16 status conference, Anciaux and Putikka advised the court that it was doubtful they could be ready for trial by April 24. For one thing, Putikka had a murder trial scheduled from March 7 through March 17 and thus would be unable to do any work on Couture‘s case during that period. The court, however, pointed out that it had appointed two attorneys to take over Couture‘s defense for this very reason and that it expected there to be “some division of labor” between them. Putikka also stated, though, that the defense investigator needed more time to review the discovery materials and that he (Putikka) could not be prepared to file motions by the February 21 deadline because he had just received the transcripts of the prior proceedings on the suppression issue. He did not explain, however, when he had provided the discovery materials to the investigator, why the investigator needed more time, or why he had not obtained the transcripts sooner. In any event, Putikka asked the court to extend the deadline for filing motions “at least another two to three weeks.” The
¶30 On March 20, Anciaux filed a motion to suppress “any and all evidence seized pursuant to [the] search warrants issued in this matter and any and all statements made by the Defendant.”1 At a status conference on March 23, the court indicated that it intended to stick to the April 24 trial date; however, Anciaux again suggested that this date would not be feasible because “[w]e‘ve just recently had the private investigator come on board full time. He has reviewed the file. It‘s my understanding that he is prepared to go do interviews and collect[] some other evidence.” Anciaux thus advised the court that he might be filing a motion to continue, and he in fact did so on April 10 “on the grounds that additional investigation is required in this matter.” The prosecution did not object, and the court granted the motion. It set the motions hearing for April 28 and trial for June 12 (the fourth trial setting).
¶31 On April 14, the prosecutor filed his response to Couture‘s motion to suppress. Among other things, he raised the doctrine of inevitable discovery, i.e., that the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered through lawful means. See generally State v. Ellis, 2009 MT 192, ¶¶ 48-59, 351 Mont. 95, 210 P.3d 144.
¶32 On April 27, Anciaux filed a motion to continue the April 28 motions hearing to May 25 “on the grounds that additional investigation is required in this matter,” though he did not provide an explanation for why additional investigation was required. The prosecution did not object, and the court reset the hearing for May 26. But on May 25, Anciaux and Putikka requested another continuance
¶33 The hearing on the prosecutor‘s October 26, 2005 motion for clarification and on Couture‘s March 20, 2006 motion to suppress finally occurred on June 30. The State called three witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, Anciaux requested that he be given time to brief some issues that had arisen during the hearing. The court granted this request and set a deadline of July 7 (four working days after the hearing). The judge acknowledged that this would put the parties “under some pressure,” but she explained that her intention was to maintain the August 7 trial date, noting that “we have certainly delayed [the trial] long enough that that causes me significant concerns.” On July 17, the court entered its Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order. In short, the court ruled that all of the evidence obtained from the May 17, 2004 search plus, as fruit of the poisonous tree, all of the ensuing evidence (including Couture‘s statements to detectives and the evidence obtained from the May 18, 2004 search warrants) had to be suppressed, except for the evidence that was discovered from an independent source, and except for the evidence that would have been inevitably discovered. The court specified the items of evidence that fell into these two categories. The case, now in its 791st day, was on course for trial on August 7.
¶34 At a July 21 status conference, however, Anciaux asked the court to vacate the August 7 trial date. He noted that Couture “is having a hard time in jail,” but that “in the interest of his defense he agrees with counsel that a little more time is necessary.” Anciaux explained that the court‘s ruling on the suppression issue had “changed the focus of the defense” and had “raised some other issues.” He indicated that it would take him until mid-September to explore and investigate fully the “evidentiary situation” created by the court‘s ruling and “to prepare for what we believe the true defense in this is now.” He noted that the prosecutor likewise wanted more time to evaluate the court‘s decision.
¶35 The court advised the parties that it had a trial date available on August 28 and that the next available date after that would probably be in November. The court added that it was reluctant to grant a continuance, given that they were well over two years into the case and already on the fifth trial setting. Furthermore, the court stated that it did not want to reset the trial for a new date “if we‘re just going to get to that trial date and do the same thing again, which is what‘s been happening.” Addressing Couture directly, the court said that it was “more than happy to make everybody go to trial on August 7th,” to which Couture replied: “Yes; I know. But the way it sound[s] to me, I need more time.” He indicated that he was “pretty sure” going to trial on August 7 would not be in his best interests. The court therefore agreed to continue the trial and subsequently issued an order resetting it for October 30 (the sixth trial setting).
¶36 Later that same day (July 21), the prosecutor filed a motion for clarification of the court‘s July 17 order on the suppression issue. The court set a hearing for August 31, but left the trial set for October 30. At the hearing, the State called one witness. The parties were then given time to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and any objections to the other party‘s proposals. On October 16, the court issued an order holding that there was sufficient probable cause for the May 18, 2004 search warrants independent of the information gained under the May 17 search warrant and, therefore, that the evidence seized under the May 18 search warrants would not be suppressed.
¶37 Sometime in October, the parties discussed a possible plea agreement. Anciaux and Putikka proposed that Couture plead guilty
¶38 Meanwhile, on October 11, the prosecution filed a Notice of Additional Witnesses. One of the 10 witnesses listed in the notice was Emmanual Little Wolf, who had been incarcerated with Couture at the Lake County Jail. According to the prosecutor, Little Wolf gave a statement to detectives in March 2006 concerning admissions Couture had made about McLeod‘s murder. Initially, the prosecutor decided not to use Little Wolf as a witness because he already had Couture‘s recorded admissions about the murder. But when the court suppressed Couture‘s statements in its July 17, 2006 order, the prosecutor decided that he might call Little Wolf after all.
¶39 As a result, Anciaux filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict of interest arising out of his simultaneous representation of Little Wolf when Little Wolf gave his statement to detectives against Couture. At a hearing on October 26, the court indicated that it would allow Anciaux to withdraw. This, in turn, led to a discussion of whether Putikka would be prepared to try the case without Anciaux the following Monday (October 30). In this regard, Anciaux and Putikka explained that because they had divided the work between them, there were things Anciaux had handled with which Putikka was not intimately familiar, and as a result Putikka would need time to get up to speed on those facets of the defense. The court raised the issue of Couture‘s right to a speedy trial, but Putikka responded that Couture also had the right to a fair trial, and he stated that there was “no possible way” he could be prepared for trial by October 30. He inquired whether the court had time available in December, but the court—clearly exasperated with the repeated delays—balked at this suggestion. Likewise, the prosecutor indicated that he would object to a continuance of more than two or three weeks. Thus, the court instead set trial for November 13 (the seventh setting), noting that this would give Putikka three weeks to prepare. The court rejected his contention that this would not be enough time because he had other cases and could not “just drop everything else and [work on Couture‘s case] for the next three weeks.” The court noted that he had resources available to him for handling his various cases. Also, when Putikka later expressed his appreciation that the prosecutor had quickly filed a response to the defense‘s motions in limine, the court aptly observed: “It‘s amazing when I back you guys up against the wall you get things accomplished.”
¶41 On November 2, the prosecutor and Putikka jointly moved to continue the trial. For one thing, two prosecution witnesses were going to be out of state during the week of November 13. Also, Putikka explained that he had assigned another attorney to the case and she was presently getting up to speed. The court reset trial for November 27 (the eighth and final trial setting) and told counsel “it‘s highly unlikely that there is anything ... that‘s not going to allow this case to go forward on the 27th.”
¶42 On November 16, Couture sent an Inmate‘s Request Grievance to the court, stating that if Putikka was not ready for trial on November 27, he wanted new counsel. On November 17, Putikka and his co-counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Couture‘s right to a speedy trial had been violated. Applying the speedy trial test set forth in City of Billings v. Bruce, 1998 MT 186, 290 Mont. 148, 965 P.2d 866, the District Court denied the motion.
¶43 The case proceeded to trial on November 27—924 days (nearly 31 months) and 35 continuances after Couture‘s arrest. Not all of these continuances resulted in a corresponding postponement of the trial date. Some were continuances of deadlines and hearings which did not require that the trial be reset. Nevertheless, the sheer quantity of them evidences a repeated failure on the part of defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the court to stick to deadlines, and also reflects the
¶44 After a four-day trial, the jury found Couture guilty of deliberate homicide and both counts of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. The District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the homicide charge, with no eligibility for parole, and to two 10-year terms of imprisonment on the tampering charges, again with no eligibility for parole, all sentences to be served consecutively.
VIII. Appeal
¶45 Couture appealed to this Court (State v. Couture, No. DA 07-0189), arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel resulting in a deprivation of his right to a speedy trial under Bruce. While the parties were briefing the appeal, this Court issued its decision in State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815, where we adopted a revised speedy trial test. We therefore dismissed Couture‘s appeal without prejudice and remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of his speedy trial claim in light of Ariegwe. On remand, the parties briefed the speedy trial issue under Ariegwe, and the District Court held an evidentiary hearing at which Nistler, Anciaux, Putikka, Couture, the judge‘s judicial assistant, and a lieutenant from the Lake County Sheriff‘s Office testified. Applying Ariegwe, the court again denied Couture‘s motion to dismiss. The court‘s reasoning is discussed below where applicable. Couture again appeals.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶46 We analyze a speedy trial claim under a four-factor balancing test. We examine (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the accused‘s responses to the delay, and (4) prejudice to the accused as a result of the delay. We then balance these factors with any other relevant circumstances to determine whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated. Ariegwe, ¶¶ 106-112; State v. Billman, 2008 MT 326, ¶ 11, 346 Mont. 118, 194 P.3d 58.
¶47 We apply two standards when reviewing a district court‘s ruling on a speedy trial motion. First, we review the factual findings underlying the court‘s ruling to determine whether those findings are clearly erroneous. Ariegwe, ¶ 119. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves this Court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
DISCUSSION
¶48 None of the four speedy trial factors “is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to the legal conclusion that the accused has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. Rather, the factors must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” Ariegwe, ¶ 102. In the present case, however, we note that Factor Two (the reasons for the delay) entails a more lengthy and involved analysis, given the number of continuances and delays. Indeed, the parties have dedicated more of their briefing to this factor than the other three, and there correspondingly are more issues requiring resolution under this factor. For these reasons, after addressing Factor One, we will address Factors Three and Four and then return to Factor Two.
I. Factor One: The Length of the Delay
¶49 The period between accusation and trial in this case was 924 days. Given that this is 724 days beyond the 200-day trigger date for speedy trial analysis, the District Court correctly concluded that the State carries “a heavy burden” to justify the delay (Factor Two). See Ariegwe, ¶¶ 62, 123. Moreover, the presumption of prejudice is substantially increased; and the court correctly concluded that the State, therefore, must make “a very persuasive showing” that Couture was not prejudiced (Factor Four). See Ariegwe, ¶¶ 56-58, 123; Billman, ¶ 18; State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201, ¶ 53, 351 Mont. 144, 214 P.3d 708; State v. Hendershot, 2009 MT 292, ¶ 10, 352 Mont. 271, 216 P.3d 754.
¶50 Under the third speedy trial factor, we evaluate the accused‘s responses to the delay, i.e., his or her acquiescence in and objections to pretrial delays. Ariegwe, ¶ 110. The issue is not simply the number of times the accused acquiesced or objected; rather, the focus is on the surrounding circumstances, such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, the accused‘s pretrial conduct (as that conduct bears on the speedy trial right), and so forth. See Ariegwe, ¶¶ 76-77, 80-82, 110. The totality of the accused‘s responses to the delay is indicative of whether he or she actually wanted a speedy trial. Billman, ¶ 31; Ariegwe, ¶ 79. In addition, the accused‘s responses provide guidance for balancing the other factors. See Ariegwe, ¶¶ 78, 110.
¶51 Analyzing Couture‘s responses to the delays, the District Court observed that, on one hand, he “occasionally expressed reluctance to acquiesce in delay despite the advice of counsel.” For example, he resisted Nistler‘s request for a second mental health evaluation, he turned down a plea offer and asked to go to trial, he was reluctant to agree to Anciaux‘s request for a continuance of the February 2006 trial date, he stated at the October 26, 2006 hearing that he was “stressed out because this has gone on for two and a half years,” and he sent a grievance to the court on November 16, 2006, stating that if Putikka was not ready for trial on November 27, he wanted new counsel. On the other hand, however, the court observed that Couture had signed three speedy trial waivers (on January 3, June 14, and September 8, 2005). In addition, the court noted that when it raised the issue of speedy trial with Couture at the July 21, 2006 status conference, he affirmed that he wished to continue the August 7 trial date. Furthermore, Couture sent the court a letter in October 2006 seeking to sever all contact with defense counsel, even though the court advised him that this would delay his trial. Thus, taking these circumstances together, the District Court concluded that Couture‘s responses to the pretrial delays were “inconsistent.”
¶52 In Ariegwe, we accorded little weight to Factor Three in the overall balancing because the defendant there had been operating under the mandates of our old speedy trial test. See Ariegwe, ¶ 138. Under the old test, a defendant satisfied this factor simply by invoking his right to a speedy trial at any time prior to the commencement of trial. See Ariegwe, ¶ 137; City of Billings v. Bruce, 1998 MT 186, ¶ 57, 290 Mont. 148, 965 P.2d 866. Here, because Couture was likewise
¶53 On appeal, Couture argues that he in fact “[c]learly” wanted to go to trial. He points out that on multiple occasions he refused to consider a plea and instead insisted on going to trial. He also contends that the waivers he filed were actually consistent with his desire to stand trial. He explains that he only agreed to waivers so that Nistler could complete his investigation (January 3 waiver), so that Dupuis could get up to speed after replacing Nistler (June 14 waiver), and so that Dupuis could litigate the suppression issue (September 8 waiver). Couture observes that, in contrast, when it appeared to him that Putikka was taking too much time to get the case to trial, he objected to the delay.
¶54 None of these facts, however, undermine the District Court‘s assessment that Couture‘s responses to the delays were “inconsistent,” and the record supports this characterization given Couture‘s expressed desire, at times, to go to trial, coupled with his willingness, at other times, to delay the trial. Ultimately, though, even if Couture harbored a strong desire throughout the pretrial period to be brought to trial as promptly as possible, the evidentiary support for this in the record is simply not compelling enough to tip the balancing heavily in his favor. Rather, we agree with the District Court that Factor Three weighs “lightly” in his favor.
III. Factor Four: Prejudice to the Accused
¶55 Under Factor Four, we consider whether the pretrial delay prejudiced the accused in light of the interests that the speedy trial right protects: (i) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (ii) minimizing anxiety and concern caused by the presence of unresolved criminal charges, and (iii) limiting the possibility that the accused‘s ability to present an effective defense will be impaired. Ariegwe, ¶ 111. As noted, the State bears a heavy burden to show that Couture was not prejudiced. See ¶ 49, supra.
i. Prevent Oppressive Pretrial Incarceration
¶56 Whether an accused‘s pretrial incarceration was “oppressive” depends on the particular circumstances of that incarceration. Ariegwe, ¶ 90. We consider the duration of the incarceration, the complexity of the charged offense, any misconduct by the accused directly related to his incarceration, and the conditions of the incarceration, such as overcrowding, recreational opportunities, adequate food, climate control, proper medical care, cleanliness, and legal research capabilities. See Ariegwe, ¶¶ 90-93.
¶57 Couture was incarcerated for the entire 924-day period between arrest and trial, which the District Court stated would normally support a finding of prejudice but for three considerations: Couture never asked the court to set bond or otherwise consider releasing him before trial; Couture was responsible for the vast majority of the delay; and the conditions of his incarceration were not oppressive. While Couture challenges this analysis on several grounds, we conclude that the court‘s ultimate determination is supported by the record.
¶58 First, regarding the duration of the incarceration, 924 days (roughly two and a half years) is an extremely long time to be incarcerated on unproven charges. Indeed, the District Court repeatedly expressed concern during the pretrial period about the fact that Couture was incarcerated. The duration of Couture‘s incarceration, therefore, supports a finding of oppressiveness.
¶59 On the other hand, however, we have said that the length of pretrial incarceration that is “oppressive” is less for a relatively simple offense than it is for a complex charge. Ariegwe, ¶ 91. Thus, in Billman, we held that the “lengthy” incarceration of 278 days, coupled with the relatively simple charges (felony DUI and two misdemeanor driving offenses), established that the pretrial delay had prejudiced the defendant. Billman, ¶ 41. But here, as the State points out, the charges of deliberate homicide and tampering with evidence were more complex, as evidenced by the extensive defense investigations. Couture also obtained multiple mental health evaluations; and at the January 27, 2005 hearing, he agreed with Nistler, on the record, that obtaining a private psychiatrist to assist in his defense was “in [his] best interest,” even though he would remain in custody for a longer period of time. The complexity of the charged offenses and the need to explore plausible defenses to those charges justified a longer period in which to prepare for trial, a correspondingly longer period of pretrial delay, and therefore a longer period of pretrial incarceration, given that Couture was not out on bail.
¶60 In this connection, we agree with Couture that his failure to seek bail is not particularly significant. The reason he did not do so was because he did not have sufficient resources to meet any bail obligation imposed on a deliberate homicide charge. Nevertheless, we have previously indicated that bail and the defendant‘s inability to post it may be a relevant circumstance to consider under this prong of the analysis—though it is by no means a tipping point. There are various factors which go into the determination of bail. Among other things, the bail amount must be “commensurate with the nature of the offense
¶61 Lastly, if the duration of a defendant‘s incarceration pending trial was due in part to a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to delay the trial, this fact would weigh in favor of the conclusion that the incarceration was unduly prolonged and, thus, was oppressive. Couture in fact makes this point on appeal, contending that his stay of roughly nine months in solitary confinement was oppressively lengthy due to the delays in getting his case to trial, which he contends were attributable to the State. We conclude below under Factor Two, however, that the majority of the pretrial delay—and, correspondingly, the majority of Couture‘s pretrial incarceration—is attributable to the defense, not the State. This fact weighs against a finding of oppressiveness.
¶62 Aside from the duration of and the reasons for the incarceration, the other primary consideration here is the conditions of the incarceration. “When analyzing the conditions of the incarceration to assess oppressiveness, we focus on the condition of the facilities and how they impact the accused, rather than solely on the condition of the accused.” Billman, ¶ 41. As noted, Couture complains of his stay in solitary confinement. Yet, his placement in solitary was at his own request because he “couldn‘t handle” being around the other inmates in the general population. Moreover, he conceded at the speedy trial hearing that he had access to a recreation room, received three meals a day, and was provided hot water, showers, light, and other necessities, including medical treatment. Likewise, Michael Sargeant (Lake County Undersheriff during Couture‘s incarceration) testified at
¶63 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that while Couture‘s incarceration was quite lengthy, the circumstances of the incarceration were not oppressive. Therefore, this factor provides little support for a finding of prejudice resulting from the pretrial delay.
ii. Minimize the Accused‘s Anxiety and Concern
¶64 In evaluating anxiety and concern, the focus is on the ways in which the presence of unresolved criminal charges disrupted the accused‘s life. A certain amount of anxiety and concern is inherent in being accused of a crime. Also, the speedy trial guarantee is designed to shorten the disruption of the accused‘s life, not to eliminate it altogether. Thus, the critical question is whether the delay in bringing the accused to trial “unduly prolonged” the disruption of his or her life or “aggravated” the anxiety and concern that are inherent in being accused of a crime. Ariegwe, ¶ 97.
¶65 Here, the District Court found that Couture‘s anxiety and stress appeared to rise beyond the level one would expect from anyone facing such serious charges. Although he suffered from anxiety and depression prior to incarceration, the court observed that his feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression worsened as his case was delayed. The court noted that on one occasion, Couture suffered a panic attack and believed he was going to die. He required medication and was twice hospitalized. In addition, he spent more than 275 days of his pretrial incarceration in solitary confinement. For these reasons, the court weighed this factor in Couture‘s favor, but only “lightly” in his favor. The court reasoned that the intensity of Couture‘s anxiety and concern “was largely of his own making” because he had asked to be placed in solitary confinement and because most of the pretrial delay was attributable to him.
¶66 On appeal, Couture argues that this factor should have weighed “much more strongly” in his favor, while the State argues that, “[i]f anything, this factor should have weighed in favor of the State.” Neither party, however, has demonstrated that the District Court‘s findings are clearly erroneous. And on the record before us, we agree with the court that this factor weighs lightly in Couture‘s favor on the question of prejudice.
iii. Limit the Possibility that the Defense Will Be Impaired
¶67 Under the third interest, we consider issues of evidence, witness reliability, and the accused‘s ability to present an effective defense.
¶68 The District Court reasoned that the pretrial delay in this case did not prejudice Couture‘s defense, but rather benefitted it. The basis for this determination was that the loss of the May 17, 2004 search warrant and application resulted in the suppression of incriminating statements and other evidence. Thus, the court weighed this factor heavily in favor of the State. We agree with Couture, however, that the court ascribed too much weight to the suppression issue. For one thing, the reason the evidence was suppressed was not because of the lengthy pretrial delay. Rather, it was because the State failed to produce the documents when discovery was first requested in May 2004 and then lost the search warrant and application in February 2005. Moreover, while the District Court initially suppressed all the evidence obtained as a result of the May 17 search warrant, including Couture‘s statements and the evidence obtained from the May 18 search warrants, it later ruled that all of the evidence obtained from the May 18 search warrants was admissible. Finally, while it is true that Couture fortuitously benefitted from the fact that defense counsel did not press for the May 17 search warrant and application until five months after these documents had been lost, this benefit simply cannot be attributed to the entire 924-day delay as the court did here.
¶69 On the other hand, the State directs our attention to State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201, ¶ 71, 351 Mont. 144, 214 P.3d 708, where we reasoned that
a substantial portion of the delay was requested by Morrisey for the express purpose of conducting investigations, having evidence tested, locating and interviewing potential witnesses, and preparing his defense to the charges. If anything, therefore, the record suggests that Morrisey‘s ability to prepare his defense was benefited, not prejudiced, by the continuances in his trial.
The State argues, and we agree, that the same reasoning applies here. Couture requested multiple continuances for the express purpose of conducting investigations, interviewing witnesses, obtaining mental health evaluations, and otherwise preparing his defense. His defense presumably benefited from having the time to accomplish these
iv. Summary
¶70 We conclude that the State has overcome the presumption of prejudice in this case. Couture‘s pretrial incarceration was unquestionably lengthy, and his anxiety and concern were aggravated by the delay. But the incarceration was not oppressive, and he has not demonstrated an impaired ability to present an effective defense as a consequence of the delay. In fact, many of the continuances were sought, and granted, for purposes of defense preparations. Accordingly, Factor Four weighs in favor of the State.
IV. Factor Two: The Reasons for the Delay
¶71 We now consider the reasons for the delay in this case. To do so, we must identify each period of delay, attribute the delay to the responsible party, and then assign weight to each period based on the specific cause and motive for the delay. Ariegwe, ¶¶ 63-67; Billman, ¶ 20. Because the question is one of “delay,” we are not concerned with actions or events that did not result in a delay of the trial. See Ariegwe, ¶ 63. Thus, for example, a request for additional time to file a brief is not counted against the party unless it results in a postponement of the trial.
¶72 With respect to delays that are attributed to the prosecution, any that were caused in bad faith—such as a deliberate attempt to hamper the defense—weigh heavily against the State. Ariegwe, ¶ 67. Delay caused by negligence or lack of diligence occupies a middle ground, but still “falls on the wrong side of the divide between acceptable and unacceptable reasons for delaying a criminal prosecution once it has begun.” Ariegwe, ¶ 69 (quoting Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 657, 112 S. Ct. 2686, 2693 (1992)); see also e.g. State v. Lacey, 2010 MT 6, ¶¶ 16-19, 355 Mont. 31, 224 P.3d 1247. Institutional delay—i.e., delay inherent in the criminal justice system and caused by circumstances largely beyond the control of the prosecutor and the accused, such as overcrowded court dockets—is attributable to the State, but weighs less heavily against it than delay caused by bad faith, negligence, or lack
¶73 At the outset, we observe that our task in conducting this analysis in the present case is substantially more difficult due to the fact that no trial date was set for the first 528 days of the 924-day pretrial period. There were numerous continuances during those 528 days, yet it is virtually impossible to determine whether a given continuance granted for purposes of filing a brief or conducting further investigations actually caused a delay in the trial, since no trial date existed. Likewise, in a case such as this, where there were multiple delaying forces at work—such as the court‘s plea agreement policy, defense investigations, the State‘s loss of the May 17, 2004 search warrant and application, and multiple replacements of defense counsel—it is difficult to evaluate a particular delaying force‘s precise impact on the case when, again, no trial date had been set.
¶74 For these reasons, it is essential that a firm trial date be set at the defendant‘s arraignment and that a firm trial date be maintained all the way to trial. Doing so serves several critical purposes. For one thing, as just noted, it facilitates an analysis of which actions and events in the course of trial preparations actually resulted in delays of the trial and who was responsible for them. It also gives the parties a firm goal they must work toward—a deadline by which preparations are to be completed. In this regard, a firm trial date enables testing facilities, such as the State Crime Lab, to prioritize which items of evidence need to be tested first. Likewise, it gives retained experts notice of when their reports need to be completed. In short, a firm trial date provides the impetus for the parties to prepare their cases diligently for trial and enables the trial court and this Court to gauge whether the parties are holding to their obligations. In addition, given the reality of crowded court dockets, trials often must be scheduled for a date weeks or months in the future. Here, for example, the District Court observed at the July 21, 2006 status conference that it had a trial date available on August 28 and that the next available date after that would probably be in November. Maintaining a trial date at all times allows this “docket delay” of a few weeks or several months to pass simultaneously with the time the parties spend conducting
¶75 Also hindering our analysis under Factor Two is the lack of proper support for many of the requested continuances in this case. A motion for a postponement must disclose the basis therefor, or it is presumed to be unjustified and is weighed heavily against the proponent (unless evidence elsewhere in the record establishes otherwise). Ariegwe, ¶ 129. Moreover, there must be a proper showing that the postponement is, in fact, justified. Simply stating in a motion or at a status conference (as occurred here on multiple occasions) that “additional time is needed” for something, such as interviewing witnesses, conducting investigations, filing a brief, or reviewing the evidence, is utterly insufficient. If time has already been given for these purposes, it is necessary that a justification be provided for why “additional” time is needed. Again, we are concerned here with the fundamental right to a speedy trial, and trial courts should deny any request for a continuance that is not supported by a concrete showing of good cause for the delay. Unfortunately, that was not done in this case, and thus the record does not establish whether the defense‘s various requests for “additional time” were justified because, for example, a witness needing to be interviewed was out of state, or were not justified because, for example, defense counsel had not been diligent in his or her duties.
¶76 In this regard, three of Couture‘s attorneys requested continuances or extensions based specifically on the fact that they were busy with other cases. And on appeal, Couture makes a point of noting that Nistler had “between 100 and 120 open files” during the period he represented Couture, Anciaux had “between 80 and 100 felonies in his case load” when he was appointed to represent Couture, and Putikka “had a private practice in Thompson Falls, Montana, some 97 miles
¶77 As a final preliminary matter, we note that at various points throughout the pretrial period, the court, defense counsel, and the prosecutor all acknowledged that Couture had the right to conduct investigations and otherwise prepare a defense to the charges, which is a corollary to the fundamental right to defend.
¶78 Whether that is in fact what occurred in the present case we cannot say on the record before us. What is clear, though, is that the
1. Arrest (May 17, 2004) to First Trial Setting (Jan. 9, 2006): 602 Days
¶80 Due to the unique procedural history of this case—in particular, the lack of a firm trial setting for more than half the pretrial period—it is necessary for purposes of this section to determine what actions and events delayed the setting of the first trial date. Initially, there is no question that the 10 days between Couture‘s May 17 arrest and the first scheduled arraignment (May 27) is institutional delay attributable to the State.
¶81 Couture continued his arraignment six times from May 27 to September 9, a total of 105 days, in order to obtain a mental health evaluation through the State Hospital. We agree with the District Court that this delay was attributable to Couture. Couture argues, however, that the 105 days were attributable to the State as “built-in delays inherent in [the] criminal justice system.” He points out that a defendant is entitled to “a reasonable time” to enter his plea (
¶82 Couture also argues that the postponements of his arraignment should not have been counted against him since they did not cause any corresponding postponements of a trial date. However, setting aside the Twentieth Judicial District Court‘s particular trial setting
¶83 Next, the District Court correctly attributed the 28 days from the September 9 arraignment to the first scheduled omnibus hearing (October 7) to the State as institutional delay. Nobody disputes this attribution.
¶84 The next logical period is from October 7, 2004, to January 27, 2005, the date on which Nistler announced that the plea proposal process had been exhausted and the defense embarked on a new defense theory (a mental state or mitigation defense). During this period of 112 days, Couture repeatedly continued the omnibus hearing in order to conduct investigations and explore the possibility of a plea agreement. The District Court attributed this delay to Couture, but we agree with Couture that the delay is attributable to the court‘s plea agreement policy. In fact, Nistler specifically cited that policy and the need to exhaust the plea proposal process before proceeding to omnibus as the reason for seeking the continuances. As explained above, the court‘s plea agreement policy results in seriatim requests for continuances of the omnibus hearing, which the court routinely grants and which, in turn, result in de facto continuances of the trial date. See ¶¶ 6-8, supra. In this case, the omnibus hearing was held 413 days after Couture entered his not guilty pleas. This approach conflicts with statutory procedures, which state that the court “shall” hold an omnibus hearing “[w]ithin a reasonable time following the entry of a not guilty plea but not less than 30 days before trial.”
¶85 The next segment of delay occurred between January 27 and May 19, 2005, a total of 112 days. During this period, Couture arranged for a second mental health evaluation in order to determine whether a mental state or mitigation defense was plausible, and he acknowledged on the record at the January 27 hearing that this delay could not be held against the State for speedy trial purposes. We agree with the District Court that the delay is attributable to Couture. Couture argues, however, that the court‘s plea agreement policy “dictated” Nistler‘s actions in seeking continuances of the omnibus hearing during this period, but the record establishes otherwise. On January 27, Nistler reported that “[w]e have exhausted the plea proposal process at this point.” On March 17, Nistler stated that Couture “has rejected any plea proposals, and it appears that the probability is great that it‘s headed to trial.” And on April 14, Nistler noted that Couture “did not wish to accept the plea proposals from the State and wanted this matter to proceed to trial,” where “the primary defense would be a mental defense.” Hence, there is no merit to the contention that the omnibus hearing needed to be continued in order to exhaust the possibility of a plea agreement. We also are not persuaded by Nistler‘s insistence at the April 14 hearing that Couture could not go through omnibus until they received Dr. Stratford‘s report. In fact, the parties could have proceeded with the omnibus hearing on January 27, at which time Couture could have given notice that he was investigating his fitness to proceed and a mental state defense, and that he would file proper notice upon receiving the report from Dr. Stratford. See
¶86 The next delay of 84 days from May 19, 2005, to August 11, 2005, was caused by Couture‘s request for different counsel and the
¶87 Beginning on August 11, 2005, and running through October 16, 2006, there were numerous continuances of the omnibus hearing and, later, the trial date as a result of the discovery/suppression issue. Recall that the State failed to file the return on the May 17, 2004 search warrant (
¶88 Turning to the 77 days from August 11, 2005, when the omnibus hearing was first continued because of the discovery/suppression issue, to October 27, 2005, when the omnibus hearing was finally held, the District Court assigned 27 days to the State for lack of diligence and 50 days to Couture based on his September 8 speedy trial waiver. Couture argues, and we agree, that all 77 days are attributable to the State. First, as just noted, the delay associated with the discovery/suppression litigation—especially the initial period leading up to the court‘s first suppression ruling on October 26—was created by the State‘s failure to comply promptly and fully with its obligations under the search-and-seizure and discovery statutes. Second, we disagree with the District Court‘s premise that “we can‘t get to omnibus until we can get a resolution of the motion to suppress on this matter.” Suppression issues do not have to be resolved before omnibus, see
¶89 Next, the period of 74 days from the October 27, 2005 omnibus hearing to the first trial setting (January 9, 2006) began with the prosecutor‘s motion for clarification of the suppression ruling. The District Court assigned the first 7 days of this delay to the State as institutional delay. Then, in early November, the court had to replace Dupuis and give Anciaux and Putikka some time to get up to speed, which was delayed when Dupuis did not promptly turn over her file on Couture. Since Couture neither caused the delay of 67 days nor had control over the situation, the District Court attributed it to the State as institutional delay. We conclude, however, that the particular circumstances surrounding Dupuis’ removal as Couture‘s counsel require a different approach for purposes of this case only. Dupuis was removed after the District Court learned that she had engaged in unlawful conduct in an unrelated matter, which in turn led to the filing of criminal charges against her as well as her suspension and, ultimately, disbarment from the practice of law in Montana. The court then promptly took steps to minimize the impact of Dupuis’ removal by appointing two attorneys to take over Couture‘s defense. Under these unique, fact-specific circumstances, we conclude that the delay of 67 days should not weigh against the State or Couture.
2. First Trial Setting (Jan. 9, 2006) to Sixth Trial Setting (Oct. 30, 2006): 294 Days
¶90 On December 8, 2005, Anciaux advised the court that he now had the complete file from Dupuis but that the January 9 trial date was unfeasible because he and Putikka needed time to review the file and prepare for trial, and because the State‘s motion for clarification of the suppression ruling needed to be resolved before trial. The court thus reset the trial for February 27, a postponement of 49 days. In its speedy trial analysis, the District Court attributed 10 of those days to institutional delay and 39 of the days to Couture. We agree with Couture, however, that having to continue the trial date from January 9 to February 27 was the direct consequence of having to replace Dupuis and her delay in turning over her file on Couture. As such, given the unique, fact-specific circumstances of Dupuis’ removal (noted above), we will not weigh the 49 days against the State or Couture in the Factor Two analysis.
¶91 Regarding the subsequent continuances from February 27 to April 24 to June 12 to August 7 (161 days), all of those were at the behest of the defense. As for the reasons for those continuances, Putikka explained that he had another murder trial in March and would be at training in June. As already noted, however, the fact that defense counsel has a hectic schedule does not in itself constitute good cause for delaying a trial. See ¶ 76, supra. Anciaux and Putikka also explained that more time was needed to conduct further investigations, interview additional witnesses, research additional motions, and otherwise prepare the defense. Yet, for the most part, none of these assertions was backed up with a concrete showing of why the additional time was needed, which was especially important here given that Nistler and Dupuis had already incurred significant delay for the same purposes (investigations, interviews, etc.) and since the court had appointed two attorneys to take over Dupuis’ place for the express purpose of moving the case quickly to trial. Thus, the 161 days weigh against Couture.
¶92 Couture contends, however, that these continuances can be traced to the State‘s motion for clarification and, even further back, to the State‘s loss of the May 17, 2004 search warrant and application. Yet, he was given reasonable time to investigate, research, and address the motion for clarification and the suppression issue. As just noted, no concrete showings of good cause were made for spending an additional five months on the matter.
¶93 Lastly, the delay from the August 7 trial date to the October 30
3. Sixth Trial Setting (Oct. 30, 2006) to Eighth Trial Setting (Nov. 27, 2006): 28 days
¶94 Trial had to be postponed from October 30 to November 13 (14 days) as a result of the prosecution‘s Notice of Additional Witnesses. The addition of Emmanual Little Wolf to the prosecution‘s list of witnesses led Anciaux to withdraw as defense counsel due to a conflict of interest. The District Court correctly attributed this delay to the State as lack of diligence for the following reasons: the court suppressed Couture‘s statements in its July 17, 2006 suppression ruling, and thus the prosecutor knew as of that date that it might need to call Little Wolf, yet it did not give notice of this fact until October 11 (86 days later, and 19 days before trial); and the prosecution knew or should have known that calling Little Wolf would create a conflict of interest for Anciaux. The State does not dispute this attribution.
¶95 The final trial postponement from November 13 to November 27 (14 days) was necessary because two of the State‘s witnesses were going to be out of state during the week of November 13. The District Court lumped these 14 days together with the State‘s lack of diligence in not promptly filing notice of Little Wolf, and the State inexplicably does not dispute this attribution on appeal. Nevertheless, our task here is to determine the specific cause and motive for each period of delay, Ariegwe, ¶ 67, and delay caused by a missing witness is a valid reason for delay, Ariegwe, ¶ 70. Thus, we attribute these last 14 days to the State as valid reasons for delay.
4. Summary
¶96 In sum, the State is responsible for 262 days of pretrial delay, which are attributed as follows: 14 days for valid reasons, 91 days for lack of diligence, and 157 days weighted as institutional delay. Couture is responsible for 462 days of delay, which are attributed as follows: 105 days for the first mental health evaluation, 112 days for the second
¶97 The only delay weighing significantly against the State is the 91-day delay caused by its lack of diligence. The rest of the State‘s delay was institutional in nature or was for valid reasons. All of Couture‘s delay was incurred for purposes of defense preparations. Of that delay, we are not persuaded that it was necessary to postpone the omnibus hearing 112 days in order to obtain the second mental health evaluation. Likewise, Couture failed to establish good cause for the 161 days of delay which resulted from continuing the second, third, and fourth trial settings. We therefore conclude that Factor Two weighs strongly against the conclusion that his right to a speedy trial was violated.
V. Balancing
¶98 We last determine whether the defendant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial in light of the unique facts and circumstances of the case and the weight assigned to each of the four factors discussed above. State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201, ¶ 73, 351 Mont. 144, 214 P.3d 708. Here, the pretrial delay of 924 days was substantial, and Couture was incarcerated that entire period. Moreover, his anxiety and concern were aggravated by the delay, and his responses to the delays (Factor Three) weigh lightly in his favor. On the other hand, the conditions of his incarceration were not oppressive, and he requested much of the delay so that he could conduct investigations, interview witnesses, and otherwise prepare his defense. While some of the delay is clearly attributable to the District Court‘s plea agreement policy and to lack of diligence by the State, we are not persuaded by Couture‘s attempts to pin most of the delay on these two sources. The record reflects that half the delay in this case was attributable to Couture alone, and a substantial portion of that weighs heavily against him in that it was not supported by concrete showings of good cause. Taking these circumstances together, we hold that Couture‘s right to a speedy trial was not violated.
CONCLUSION
¶99 This case demonstrates, unfortunately, what happens when each
¶100 We reiterate that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution. Ariegwe, ¶ 20; Barker, 407 U.S. at 515, 92 S. Ct. at 2184. Accordingly, criminal prosecutions must move at a deliberate pace and with orderly expedition. See Ariegwe, ¶ 91; Barker, 407 U.S. at 521, 92 S. Ct. at 2187. It is the obligation of the prosecutor and the court to try the accused in a timely manner, and this duty requires a good-faith, diligent effort to bring him to trial quickly. Ariegwe, ¶ 65. It is the obligation of defense counsel to defend the accused, to hold the State to its burden of proof, and to protect the accused‘s statutory and constitutional rights—including the right to a speedy trial. It is the obligation of the prosecution and the defense to hold each other to the performance of their respective statutory duties in a timely manner. And, most importantly, it is the obligation of the trial court to ensure that the prosecution and the defense fulfill their respective obligations. As the trial judge noted here, it is amazing what counsel can accomplish when the court keeps counsel‘s back to the wall—and their feet to the fire.
¶101 Based on the foregoing analysis, and on the record before us, we conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Couture‘s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial.8
¶102 Affirmed.
JUSTICE RICE, concurring.
¶103 I concur with the holding of the Court and have thus signed the opinion. However, I believe the attempt to manage the caseloads of the district courts is misguided and thus take issue with the Court‘s statement that “it is essential that a firm trial date be set at the defendant‘s arraignment and that a firm trial date be maintained all the way to trial.” Opinion, ¶ 74. We have no way of knowing whether this will be possible or practical for every case in every district, and stating such a directive will no doubt fuel challenges to the district court‘s scheduling decisions, making a difficult task even more so. While the courts must be sensitive to a defendant‘s speedy trial right, as the District Court was here, “[a] court must always keep control of its own docket.” State v. Garcia, 2003 MT 211, ¶ 32, 317 Mont. 73, 75 P.3d 313. Scheduling issues should remain the province of the district courts, which we should review for abuse of discretion.
CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH joins the concurring Opinion of JUSTICE RICE.