State v. Pierce

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 5791

Syllabus

SPEEDY TRIAL: The trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy-trial grounds under the four-factor analysis set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), because all four factors weighed in favor of the defendant: first, the 13½-month delay between the defendant's indictment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial second, the state failed to offer any evidence to explain the delay, and the state bears the burden to explain the reason for the delay under the second Barker factor third, the defendant timely asserted his speedy-trial right by filing a motion to dismiss the indictment five days after the return of the warrant fourth, the defendant did not have to show actual prejudice as a result of the state's delay, because prejudice was presumed under the first Barker factor, and the state offered no evidence to rebut this presumption of prejudice.