State v. Sassman, 57141
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 57141,57141 |
| Citation | 226 N.W.2d 808 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Russell G. SASSMAN, Appellant. |
Holmes, Ralph & Kutmus, Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Sullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ray Fenton, County Atty., for appellee.
Submitted to REYNOLDSON, Acting Chief Justice, and MASON, LeGRAND, REES and McCORMICK, JJ.
This is still another of the troublesome cases coming to our attention since we announced new rules governing a defendant's right to speedy indictment and speedy trial. See State v. Gorham, 206 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Iowa 1973) and State v. Morningstar, 207 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 1973).
In the present case, defendant was indicted 33 days after he was held to answer to a charge of robbery. This is only three days beyond the period within which an indictment should have been returned under the following provisions of § 795.1, The Code:
'When a person is held to answer for a public offense, if an indictment be not found against him within thirty days, the court must order the prosecution to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown. * * *'
The time lag involved here is insignificant, and defendant made no attempt to show he was prejudiced thereby. However, it is not necessary that he do so. Cf. State v. Nelson, 222 N.W.2d 445, 449 (Iowa 1974) and State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 159 (1975). We have said that the State cannot excuse its failure to comply with the statute by showing it was violated only a little bit. Like all limitation statutes, § 795.1 has an arbitrary deadline. The State may avoid its impact only by showing good cause for the delay.
In the present case, the delay was caused by the shortage of secretarial help in the county attorney's office. We set out the explanation given by the assistant county attorney:
In State v. Jennings, 195 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1972), we allowed as good cause for delay in trial the unavailability of a judge. We also recognized as good cause for delay the exceptional burden placed on prosecutors in making the transition in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brandt
...has said it is not necessary for defendant to show delay has been prejudicial to him when he relies on section 795.2. State v. Sassman, 226 N.W.2d 808, 809 (Iowa 1975). In regard to the requirement of trial within 60 days specified in the statute this court has "* * * Every limitation statu......
-
State v. McNeal
...that the defense show prejudice resulting from the delay. Taylor , 881 N.W.2d at 76 ; Ennenga, 812 N.W.2d at 705 ; State v. Sassman , 226 N.W.2d 808, 809 (Iowa 1975). And, the length of the delay does not relieve the State of its burden to show good cause to avoid dismissal. We have declare......
-
State v. Deases, 90-414
...avoid dismissal. Id. The arbitrary 45-day limit cannot be violated even "a little bit" without a showing of good cause. State v. Sassman, 226 N.W.2d 808, 809 (Iowa 1975). The trial court found good cause for the delay in filing the trial information against this defendant. What will constit......
-
State v. Donnell, 58328
...delays, although short, have been rejected as furnishing 'good cause' where unaccompanied by reasonable excuse. See State v. Sassman, 226 N.W.2d 808, 809 (Iowa 1975); State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Iowa 1975); State v. Nelson, 222 N.W.2d 445, 449 (Iowa 1974). Still, the fact the delay......