799 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind.App. 2003), 22A01-0304-CR-138, Paul v. State

Docket Nº22A01-0304-CR-138.
Citation799 N.E.2d 1194
Party NameSteven I. PAUL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Case DateDecember 09, 2003
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1194

799 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind.App. 2003)

Steven I. PAUL, Appellant-Defendant,

v.

STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 22A01-0304-CR-138.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

December 9, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 2004.

Page 1195

Michael J. McDaniel, New Albany, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

Steven I. Paul (Paul) brings this interlocutory appeal arising from the trial court's denial of his Motion for Discharge pursuant to Ind.Crim. Rule 4(B)(1). The sole issue presented for review is, did the trial court err in sua sponte declaring an

Page 1196

emergency and continuing and rescheduling Paul's trial date?

We affirm.

The facts favorable to the ruling demonstrate that the State charged Paul with the murder of Donald Barnett on November 6, 2002. At Paul's initial hearing on the same day, the trial court scheduled trial for January 13, 2003. On November 26, 2002, Paul filed a written motion for a speedy trial. Thereafter, Paul filed a Motion for Discovery and Production of Evidence on December 17, 2003, which the trial court granted in its entirety. A discovery order was entered to that effect. The State responded to Paul's discovery request on January 9, 2003, providing, inter alia, a list of the witnesses the State intended to call at Paul's trial, including addresses and phone numbers where available, an investigative police report, an autopsy report, as well as making available audio-taped witness interviews.

On January 10, 2003, Paul filed an Objection to Trial and Motion for Discharge. The hearing on his motion occurred the same day. Paul argued that the State's discovery responses were incomplete and tendered at the last moment so as to deprive Paul of his right to a fair trial, and that his unpreparedness for the January 13, 2003 trial was through no fault of his own. In the January 10 motion, Paul simultaneously objected to the current trial date and gave notice that he would subsequently seek discharge under Crim. Rule 4(B)(1) because the State had failed to bring him to trial within seventy days as mandated by the rule.

On January 13, 2003, after the hearing on Paul's Objection to Trial and Motion for Discharge, the trial court sua sponte issued an Order Declaring Emergency and Continuing and Rescheduling Trial Date. Of special concern to the trial court was the impact of the November 2002 general election in New Albany, Indiana on the timing of Paul's trial. Specifically, the incumbent prosecutor lost his reelection bid, and, consequently, he and his staff had only nine working days to respond to the December 17 discovery order before leaving office on December 31, 2002. No discovery was provided during that time period. The new prosecutor took office on January 1, 2003, and responded to the December 17 discovery order within seven working days--on January 9, 2003--which was also four days before trial was scheduled to begin. The trial court found that the timing of the prosecutor's transition had stymied trial preparation for both sides and that proceeding to trial would severely jeopardize Paul's constitutional rights. The trial court stated that congestion of the court's calendar was not an issue, but under the "special and unique circumstances surrounding this case, the Court concludes that an emergency exists which requires that trial of this case be continued and rescheduled within a reasonable time." Appellant's Appendix at 97. The trial court rescheduled the trial for February 25, 2003.

On January 21, 2003, Paul filed a Motion for Discharge. A hearing was held on January 24, 2003, and Paul's motion was denied. The trial court expressly found that the State had not violated the December 17 discovery order as Paul claimed, but rather had "complied with such order to the best of its ability given the facts and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • 883 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.App. 2008), 71A05-0612-CR-726, Pelley v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 8, 2008
    ...see, e.g., Foster v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) , trans. denied, or discovery-related matters, see, e.g., Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) . Thus, it would seem that the trial court's task in assessing delays for purposes of Crim. R. 4(C) is an either-or propos......
  • 856 N.E.2d 116 (Ind.App. 2006), 67A01-0505-CR-221, Truax v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 2006
    ...The Rule explicitly provides that court congestion is an exception to the seventy-day time period. Ind. Crim. R. 4(B)(1); Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). A trial court's finding of congestion is presumed to be valid. Logan v. State, 836 N.E.2d 467, 474 (Ind. Ct. A......
  • 917 N.E.2d 730 (Ind.App. 2009), 48A02-0905-CR-487, Riggs v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 30, 2009
    ...The Rule explicitly provides that court congestion is an exception to the seventy-day time period. Ind.Crim. R. 4(B)(1); Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). A trial court's finding of congestion is presumed to be valid. Logan v. State, 836 N.E.2d 467, 474 (Ind.Ct.App.200......
  • 816 N.E.2d 894 (Ind.App. 2004), 71A03-0311-JV-460, C.L.Y. v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 27, 2004
    ...been considered by other panels of this Court in the non-juvenile context of Criminal Rule 4.9 Page 902 See, e.g., Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (finding that denial of the defendant's motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) (1) was not erroneous because......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • 883 N.E.2d 874 (Ind.App. 2008), 71A05-0612-CR-726, Pelley v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 8, 2008
    ...see, e.g., Foster v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) , trans. denied, or discovery-related matters, see, e.g., Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) . Thus, it would seem that the trial court's task in assessing delays for purposes of Crim. R. 4(C) is an either-or propos......
  • 856 N.E.2d 116 (Ind.App. 2006), 67A01-0505-CR-221, Truax v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 2006
    ...The Rule explicitly provides that court congestion is an exception to the seventy-day time period. Ind. Crim. R. 4(B)(1); Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). A trial court's finding of congestion is presumed to be valid. Logan v. State, 836 N.E.2d 467, 474 (Ind. Ct. A......
  • 917 N.E.2d 730 (Ind.App. 2009), 48A02-0905-CR-487, Riggs v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 30, 2009
    ...The Rule explicitly provides that court congestion is an exception to the seventy-day time period. Ind.Crim. R. 4(B)(1); Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). A trial court's finding of congestion is presumed to be valid. Logan v. State, 836 N.E.2d 467, 474 (Ind.Ct.App.200......
  • 816 N.E.2d 894 (Ind.App. 2004), 71A03-0311-JV-460, C.L.Y. v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 27, 2004
    ...been considered by other panels of this Court in the non-juvenile context of Criminal Rule 4.9 Page 902 See, e.g., Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (finding that denial of the defendant's motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) (1) was not erroneous because......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT