State v. Wassenaar

How courts have described this case

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

• determining court did not need to inform Defendant that he would not be allowed to testify through narrative
• including prejudice as the most important of four factors for a constitutional speedy trial violation
• reviewing court resolves conflicts in evidence in favor of sustaining judgment
• court did not err by denying an evidentiary hearing when the defendant failed to support the claim with evidence
• to prevail on claim of speedy trial violation, defendant must show prejudice resulting from the untimely trial
• “The trial court has ‘broad discretion’ regarding its management of the manner in which trial will be conducted, and has a duty to exercise that discretion.” (quoting State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314, 332 (1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).