 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ferguson9/10/1999
four years after the offense, the delay between the indictment and the dismissal of the charges against the defendant was only four months. These facts do not evidence a violation of the right to a speedy trial.
A delay between the commission of an offense and the initiation of adversarial proceedings may raise due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. Utley, 956 S.W.2d at 495. To determine whether a due process violation has occurred when the state is aware that an offense has been committed, the defendant must establish: (1) a delay has occurred; (2) the delay caused prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial; and, (3) the state caused the delay to obtain a tactical advantage. Utley, 956 S.W.2d at 495 (citing State v. Gray, 917 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tenn. 1996)).
In the case sub judice, obviously a delay has occurred. The most important question, although not determinative in every case, is whether the delay caused any prejudice to the defendant. Carico, 968 S.W.2d at 285. The trial court specifically found that no prejudice had resulted from the almost four-year delay. A review of the record reveals nothing to alter this Conclusion. Additionally, no evidence exists that the state caused the delay to obtain a tactical advantage. Thus, the defendant was not deprived of due process as a result of the almost four-year delay.
For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and reinstate the indictment.
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|