Jakupovic v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, in the context of a retrial, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant failed to show prejudice from the unavailability of two witnesses where transcripts of their testimony from his first trial were available
• where the trial court grants a defendant’s motion for new trial without inordinate delay, the delay for constitutional speedy trial purposes is measured from the date that the trial court grants the new trial
• where the trial court grants a defendant’s motion for new trial without inordinate delay, the delay for constitutional speedy trial purposes is measured from the date that the trial court grants the new trial
• “[When], as here, there is no contention that there was any inordinate delay in ruling on the defendant’s motion for new trial, the length of the delay in retrying the defendant is measured from the date that the trial court ruled upon the defendant’s motion.”
• the delay in bringing the defendant to trial was calculated beginning with the date of the order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial, where the grant of that motion was based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, rather than on any error or misconduct by the State

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).