State v. Matthews, 94-359

• Decision Date: 18 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-359,94-359
• Citation: 894 P.2d 285,271 Mont. 24
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Larry D. MATTHEWS, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 285

894 P.2d 285

271 Mont. 24

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Larry D. MATTHEWS, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 94-359.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Jan. 19, 1995.

Decided April 18, 1995.

Joseph Mazurek, Atty. Gen., Mark J. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Ed Amestoy, Phillips County Atty., Malta, for appellant.

Robert D. Morrison, Morrison Law Firm, Whitefish, for respondent.

NELSON, Justice.

The State of Montana appeals from an order of the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips County, dismissing the action against the defendant, Larry D. Matthews, for lack of a speedy trial. We affirm.

The State raises three issues on appeal, which we have consolidated into one issue and state as follows:

Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

Larry Matthews is the owner/operator of Delta Ford, a motor vehicle dealership in Malta, Montana. On May 12, 1993, Matthews was charged by information with six counts of forgery, all felonies, in violation of § 45-6-325, MCA, or in the alternative six counts of felony theft, in violation of § 45-6-301, MCA. The information alleged that Matthews drafted six cash rebate checks in amounts of $500 or $1000, on the account of the Ford Division-Customer Cash Assistance account. The checks were made payable to the six customers who were entitled to receive the rebates. According to the affidavit in support of the information, Matthews made the checks payable to the benefit of Delta Ford, and forged the customers' names on the checks without their knowledge or authority. The information alleged that Matthews' purpose was to either defraud the customers of the rebate money, or to defraud the manufacturer.

Matthews was summoned to appear on the charges on May 21, 1993. Matthews appeared in court with his attorney on this date, and was advised of the charges against him. Matthews requested more time to enter a plea, and the court continued the matter to a later date.

The record indicates that no further action was taken on the case until June 18, 1993, when Matthews moved to dismiss the information. The motion raised the issue of failure to charge with certainty and precision in the information, as well as raising the issue of insufficiency of the affidavit in support of filing the information. Matthews also requested discovery and inspection of evidence in the State's possession on this same date. The prosecution then moved for a continuance to respond to the motion to dismiss which the court granted. The District Court never ruled on Matthews' pretrial motions.

The next action indicated by the record occurred on September 21, 1993, when Matthews moved the court to compel discovery, and suppress evidence. Matthews also requested that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. The State responded to the motions, however again the court made no rulings on the motions.

On December 9, 1993, the State filed a motion to set a trial date, which indicated that Matthews had been properly arraigned, but that a trial date had not yet been set. Matthews objected to the motion on December 15, 1993, on the basis that he had not been arraigned, and because the court had never ruled on his pretrial motions.

Further delay was caused by the retirement of Judge Leonard H. Langen, who retired from the bench on December 31, 1993. The newly-appointed District Court Judge recused himself from jurisdiction on January 14, 1994, as did the District Court Judge invited to assume jurisdiction. District Court Judge James M. Sorte assumed jurisdiction on February 7, 1994.

The court then set a date for a jury trial for March 7, 1994. Although not evident from the record, the State claims that Matthews objected to the trial date, apparently on the grounds that the court had not ruled on his pretrial motions, and because he had never been arraigned. Consequently, the District Court scheduled a hearing on the motions for April 18, 1994. This hearing was rescheduled for May 2, 1994, due to "scheduling conflicts."

The parties appeared in court on the scheduled date, and the court heard arguments on Matthews' motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. The court also heard argument concerning Matthews' motion to compel discovery, and ordered the State to prepare an order directing the Clerk of the District Court to release the investigative file concerning Matthews.

At this same hearing, Matthews advised the court that he would be filing a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial. Matthews filed this motion on May 16, 1994, and on June 7, 1994, the District Court entered its order dismissing the action with prejudice. The State appeals from this order.

A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution. State v. Stewart (1994), 266 Mont. 525, 529, 881 P.2d 629, 632. This Court uses the test from Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, to determine whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. State ex rel. Sol Briceno v. District Court (1977), 173 Mont. 516, 568 P.2d 162. This test requires a balancing of the following four factors:

1) length of the delay;

2) reason for the delay;

3) assertion of the right by the defendant; and

4) prejudice to the defendant.

Stewart, 881 P.2d at 632. No one factor is determinative, rather, each factor is weighed in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Stewart, 881 P.2d at 632.

The first factor to be considered, the length of the delay, is of primary importance, as it acts as a "triggering" mechanism. If the delay is found to be presumptively prejudicial, this triggers further analysis of the remaining three factors. State v. Eklund (1994), 264 Mont. 420, 424, 872 P.2d 323, 326. In this case the State concedes that the delay of 298 days from the date Matthews was charged (May 12, 1993), to the date he would have been tried, (March 7, 1994), is sufficient to warrant further analysis. See, State v. Thompson (1993), 263 Mont. 17, 865 P.2d 1125 "[a] delay of over 200 days will usually trigger the full analysis." Because of the presumption of prejudice, the State has the burden of providing a reasonable explanation for the delay, and for showing that Matthews was not prejudiced by the delay. Eklund, 872 P.2d at 326.

Consideration of the second factor, the reason for the delay, requires us to allocate portions of the overall delay between the parties to determine which party is responsible for causing any given period of delay. Thompson, 865 P.2d at 1135. The record indicates that the delay in this case can be entirely attributed to the State, and resulted from the District Court's failure to rule or take any action on Matthews' pretrial motions and for its failure to arraign Matthews. In fact, in its brief in opposition to Matthews' motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which it filed in District Court, the State conceded that:

[a]lthough the delay results entirely in time spent deciding defense motion[s], it would be disingenuous to suggest that the Defendant caused the delay. The District Court must be allowed reasonable time to decide motions, the time spent on these motions is excessive. The District Court never decided those Motions.

While the State attempts to attribute the delay to Matthews on appeal, we conclude that the delay resulted from the court's failure to arraign Matthews, from its failure to rule on the pretrial motions, and the prosecution's lack of diligence.

The delay caused by the court's failure to arraign Matthews, and to rule on the pretrial motions is classified as "institutional delay," and is chargeable to the State. State v. Hembd (1992), 254 Mont. 407, 413, 838 P.2d 412, 416. Institutional delay weighs less heavily on the State than does purposeful delay. Hembd, 838 P.2d at 416. While the prosecution argues that it "did everything reasonably within [its] means to bring this case to trial," the record does not reflect that the prosecution attempted to set a new date for Matthews' arraignment and entry of plea, or to notify the court of its failure to hold a proper arraignment. In addition, while the prosecution claims it contacted the court concerning its failure to rule on Matthews' pretrial motions, it produced nothing by means of affidavit or otherwise to demonstrate it had done so.

With regard to the prosecution's diligence in bringing the case to trial, the only formal action the prosecution took was when it filed the motion to set a trial date on December 9, 1993. Matthews objected to this motion because he had not been arraigned and because the court had not ruled on his pretrial motions. Because Matthews' objection was...