Holt v. State, 973S196

Decision Date10 September 1974
Docket NumberNo. 973S196,973S196
PartiesWillie Jerome HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Julius H. Sachs, Hammond, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., G. Richard Potter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

The Appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of Second Degree Murder. A woman called Georgia Bryant, who was living with the victim, a dealer in narcotics, testified that on February 21, 1972, she overheard from an adjoining room the victim say to another person, 'I only carry on me four (4), that's all. You're going to have to kill me, . . ..' Georgia Bryant then heard a shot. She peeked into the room and saw the Appellant with a gun in his hand standing over the body of the victim. Appellant fled. On March 10, 1973, Appellant was found guilty of murder in the Second Degree.

Despite this verdict, we must order the discharge of the Appellant in view of the State's failure to comply with Rule CR. 4, which is the mechanism adopted by this Court to insure the constitutional right to a speedy trial for each defendant in a criminal trial.

Appellant relies upon the following rule, Rule CR. 4(A), (D):

'(A) Defendant in jail. No defendant shall be detained in jail on a charge, without a trial, for a (continuous) period in aggregate embracing more than six (6) months from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge (whichever is later); except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall make such statement in a motion for continuance not later than ten (10) days prior to the date set for trial, or if such motion is filed less than ten (10) days prior to trial, the prosecuting attorney shall show additionally that the delay in filing the motion was not the fault of the prosecutor.

(D) Discharge for delay in trial--When may be refused--Extensions of time. If when application is made for discharge of a defendant under this rule, the court be satisfied that there is evidence for the state, which cannot then be had, that reasonable effort has been made to procure the same and there is just ground to believe that such evidence can be had within ninety (90) days, the cause may be continued, and the prisoner remanded or admitted to bail; and if he be not brought to trial by the state within such additional ninety (90) days, he shall then be discharged.'

Appellant was arrested on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Frazier
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1982
    ...560, 357 N.E.2d 725, 727 (1976) (failure of prosecutor's office to locate defendant incarcerated within state); Holt v. State, 262 Ind. 334, 336, 316 N.E.2d 362, 363 (1974) (failure of prosecuting attorney to explain or give reason for delay); State v. Gorham, 206 N.W.2d 908, 915 (Iowa 1973......
  • Fox v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 30, 1979
    ...day of the delay. State v. Moss, (1976) Ind.App., 343 N.E.2d 827; Moreno v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 336 N.E.2d 675; Holt v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 334, 316 N.E.2d 362. In the case at bar, the record reveals that Kapp filed a motion for change of venue from the county, which was denied March......
  • Moreno v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 5, 1975
    ...has been the rule under the pre-amendment version of CR. 4(A). Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 271 N.E.2d 441; Holt v. State (1974), Ind., 316 N.E.2d 362; Johnson v. State (1974), Ind., 313 N.E.2d 535. This was also the rule under Supreme Court Rule 1--4D(3), which is substantially......
  • Sharpe v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 29, 1977
    ...for the delay, the six-month period began to run anew from the last day of the delay chargeable to him. See, e. g., Holt v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 334, 316 N.E.2d 362; Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 271 N.E.2d 411; Moreno, The record in this case shows that trial was originally se......
  • 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