State v. Jenkins
| Citation | 565 P.2d 758,29 Or.App. 751 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Harold JENKINS, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
John W. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Roy Kilpatrick, Mount Vernon, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William A. Galbreath, Milton Freewater.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and LEE and RICHARDSON, JJ.
The state appeals dismissal of the indictment for lack of speedy trial.
This appeal arises from a complex procedural background. On September 27, 1973, defendant was charged in four separate indictments by the Malheur County grand jury for theft of four separate head of cattle. The trial on the first of these indictments began on December 11, 1973, but ended in a mistrial when a prosecution witness referred to the pending indictments against the defendant.
These four indictments were dismissed on the motion of the state and on January 31, 1974, the state obtained a new indictment containing seven counts of theft of livestock animals. Following this indictment the state, on February 11, 1974, moved to disqualify the trial judge for prejudice. ORS 14.260. The trial judge refused to recuse himself, and the state filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court. On December 31, 1974, while a referee appointed by the Supreme Court was taking evidence pertaining to the writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court disallowed the petition because of a defect in the affidavit accompanying the motion for change of judge. State ex rel. Yraguen v. Dorroh, 270 Or. 834, 530 P.2d 29 (1974).
On February 14, 1975, the state filed a second motion for change of judge purportedly correcting the defect the Supreme Court found in the first motion and affidavit. The trial judge also denied this motion on April 24, 1975. The state responded with a second petition for writ of mandamus which was denied by the Supreme Court without opinion on August 6, 1975. At this point nearly 23 months had elapsed since the defendant was originally indicted.
On October 3, 1975, the defendant orally moved for dismissal of the indictment for lack of speedy trial. The motion was denied on October 28, 1975. Trial was set for December 9, 1975, but was continued to January 14, 1976, on motion of the defendant.
On the day before trial was to begin the defendant filed a motion for dismissal on the ground his right to a speedy trial had been denied and at the same time moved for a continuance. The court held a hearing on the motion for dismissal at which the defendant and his wife testified. The motion for dismissal was denied and the defendant immediately filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court. At this time there was a discussion before the court as to whether the denial of the dismissal was an appealable order and whether filing a notice of appeal would stay the circuit court proceeding. The court, over the state's objection, removed the case from the trial docket pending defendant's appeal.
Defendant's appeal was dismissed by this court on the motion of the state on March 11, 1976. The defendant failed to timely file a petition for review in the Supreme Court, but on May 21, more than two months after dismissal of his appeal by this court, he moved for relief from default in the Supreme Court. His motion was granted but the Supreme Court denied his petition for review on the merits.
The state moved to have the case set for trial on January 22, 1976, April 8, 1976, and June 8, 1976. On June 28, 1976, the defendant moved for a change of judge and for a change of venue. The motion for change of venue was allowed and the case was transferred to Multnomah County.
On August 13, 1976, the defendant moved in the Multnomah County Circuit Court for dismissal of the indictment on the ground he was denied a right to speedy trial. The motion was granted and the state appeals.
In determining whether a defendant has been denied a constitutional right to speedy trial we have adopted the analytical framework suggested by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); State v. Ivory, 278 Or. 499, 564 P.2d 1039 (1977); State v. Koennecke, 29 Or.App. 637, 565 P.2d 376 (1977). This analytical framework involves balancing the particular circumstances of the case at issue as they relate to (1) the length of delay, (2) reasons for the delay, (3) defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to defendant arising from delay of trial.
The length of delay is a triggering mechanism to determine if further analysis is required. A delay of approximately three years is sufficient to require further inquiry. See State v. Ivory, supra.
The first four months were consumed by the first set of indictments and the first trial which ended in a mistrial. Defendant intimates in his brief the mistrial was provoked by the district attorney in order to obtain another indictment more to his liking. Although the mistrial resulted from a statement during the testimony of a state's witness, the record does not support an inference it was intentional. The district attorney candidly admitted, during argument on the motion to dismiss, that he was pleased to take advantage of the mistrial to consolidate the charges in one indictment and to add the additional charges. This is not intentional misconduct on the part of the prosecutor to provoke a delay for tactical advantage. The period of time through the first trial was not an unreasonable delay. The state, however, must be charged with the delay necessary to obtain a new indictment. This was a period of approximately 50 days.
The next 19 months were taken up by the state's two motions for change of judge and the petitions for writs of mandamus. The state has a right to move for a change of judge pursuant to ORS 14.260, and the right to appeal an adverse ruling on the motion. Generally, periods of time necessary for appeal are deemed permissible delays. See Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968); United States v. Bishton, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 463 F.2d 887 (1972); State v. Koennecke, supra. However, the state's right to pursue proper appeals may come into conflict with its obligation to expeditiously try a criminal defendant.
In Barker v. Wingo, supra, the trial was continued on 16 separate occasions on motion of the state so the codefendant could be tried and thus be available to testify in Barker's trial. Concerning this delay the Supreme Court said:
" * * * Perhaps some delay would have been permissible under ordinary circumstances, so that Manning (the codefendant) could be utilized as a witness in Barker's trial, but more than four years was too long a period * * * ." 407 U.S. at 534, 92 S.Ct. at 2194.
Thus, even a permissible delay caused by the state may become oppressive after a period of time.
Here the proceeding pursued by the state to disqualify the trial judge did not involve the defendant and only collaterally involved the issues posed by the indictment. This period of delay of 19 months must be weighed heavily against the state particularly since the defendant was in essence a third party observer of the proceedings at that point.
The ensuing delays in trial following dismissal of the second writ of mandamus by the Supreme Court are attributable to the defendant. The defendant cannot take advantage of delays caused by his own conduct whether or not the delays were justified.
Defendant did not assert a right to speedy trial until after the second petition for writ of mandamus was denied, more than 22 months after the original indictment. He filed two additional motions for dismissal, the final motion being the basis of this appeal. Failure to assert a right to speedy trial is not considered a waiver of the right. Barker v. Wingo, supra. However, the defendant's assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy trial is one factor to be considered in an inquiry into deprivation of that right. In determining the value of this factor in the balancing process the court should weigh the frequency and force of the assertion and the reasons ascribed for not asserting the right earlier.
During oral argument before the Multnomah County Circuit Court on the motion to dismiss, defendant's counsel said he did not file a motion for speedy trial prior to resolution of the mandamus proceedings because the Malheur County Circuit Court had said " '(n)othing (was) going to happen' " until the Supreme Court ruled on the state's petition. The defendant could have filed a motion for prompt trial or a motion to dismiss during this period. However, such motion could not have been considered by the circuit court. The judge, who was the respondent in the state's petition for writ of mandamus, was foreclosed from considering any matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hernandez
...proceed without an appeal of the adverse ruling? (See United States v. Herman, supra, 576 F.2d 1139, 1146-1147; cf. State v. Jenkins (1977) 29 Or.App. 751, 565 P.2d 758, 761); (2) the strength of the prosecution's position in reference to the issue appealed; (see State v. Fernald (Me.1979) ......
-
State v. Hall
...a speedy trial under ORS 135.747. Suffice it to say that defendant himself contributed to much of the delay. See State v. Jenkins, 29 Or. App. 751, 756, 565 P.2d 758 (1977) ("The defendant cannot take advantage of delays caused by his own conduct whether or not the delays were justified.").......
-
Haynes, Application of
...reasonable possibility of prejudice to plaintiff's defense, it is the court's responsibility to dismiss the case. Cf. State v. Jenkins, 29 Or.App. 751, 565 P.2d 758 (1977), applying the rule of State v. Ivory, supra, 29 Or.App. at 760, 564 P.2d 1039. If the accused is neither released nor t......
-
State v. Robinson
...for change of judge should weigh heavily against the state, since the issue does not involve the defendant. State v. Jenkins, 29 Or.App. 751, 756, 565 P.2d 758 (1977). Here, all we are told is that the petition for alternative writ of mandamus contested the trial court's granting of defenda......