State asks appeals court to reverse dismissal after trial court found speedy-trial violation

COURT OF APPEALS — At an appellate hearing on May 13, 2024, Courtney Orr, representing the State, asked a three-judge panel to reverse a trial-court order that dismissed an indictment with prejudice after the court found the defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Orr told the panel the defendant was arrested in May 2022 and the grand jury returned an indictment in September 2022 charging especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated [redacted], and three counts of aggravated assault. She said a substantial portion of the delay — about six months — resulted from forensic testing conducted by the TBI, and that prosecutors repeatedly tried to locate and secure a material witness for trial. "The trial court's order was in error," Orr said, arguing the record does not establish a Barker v. Wingo speedy-trial violation under de novo review.

The case was set for trial in September 2023, then reset after prosecutors reported difficulty locating the witness; the witness was placed in drug court as part of resolving unrelated charges and was reporting weekly to the DA’s office until roughly two weeks before a January 2024 setting, Orr said. After a May 2024 setting, the State moved to nolle the charges because it could not locate the witness and the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice on May 13, 2024.

Orr acknowledged the delay between indictment and dismissal was about 20 months but told the panel that a delay tied to necessary forensic testing and diligent attempts to secure a witness should not weigh heavily against the State. She also argued the defendant had not shown specific prejudice from the delay: the written speedy-trial motion was filed March 22, 2024, and, Orr said, the defendant did not identify witnesses or other evidence lost because of the delay.

Appellee counsel Kendall Jones disputed that characterization, arguing the 20-month period of custody amounted to presumptive prejudice and citing Doggett v. United States to emphasize that prejudice need not always be shown by affirmative proof. Jones said the alleged victim repeatedly failed to appear for court and that the defendant endured prolonged restrictions and incarceration while the State failed to secure its witness.

The panel questioned both sides about when the defendant first asserted his speedy-trial right, the timing of the written motion, and the State's specific steps to locate the witness between a January 22, 2024 status and the May 13, 2024 dismissal. Orr told the court the record is relatively silent about certain efforts in that interval, noting the State relied heavily on contact through the witness's daughter and other attempts reflected in the trial-court filings.

The hearing recessed for the afternoon with the panel having heard argument on both the speedy-trial claim and related record issues. The court did not announce a decision at the hearing.