AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Following a two-vehicle collision in October 2013, the Defendant was charged with homicide by vehicle and other related offenses. Six years later, the district court dismissed the case, citing a violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, challenging the start date for the speedy trial clock and the weight given to various delays.
• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that her right to a speedy trial was violated due to the extensive delay from arrest to trial setting, with significant periods of inaction and administrative delay attributable to the State.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated due to a seventy-three month delay from arrest to trial setting.
• Whether the reasons for delay, the assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice suffered by the Defendant were properly weighed and considered.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the violation of her speedy trial rights was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, agreed with the district court's findings and reasoning, except as stated. The court conducted a de novo review of the Barker v. Wingo factors, considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, the Defendant's assertion of her right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice suffered by the Defendant. The court found the delay to be presumptively prejudicial and weighed heavily against the State, with the majority of the delay attributed to negligent, administrative, and bureaucratic indifference. The Defendant's assertions of her right to a speedy trial were considered timely and forceful, and the prejudice she suffered, including undue anxiety, financial difficulties, and loss of an expert witness, was deemed particularized and undue. The court concluded that the balance of the Barker factors favored the Defendant, affirming the dismissal of the charges against her due to a violation of her right to a speedy trial (paras 1-20).