State v. Hall

Under former ORS 135.747 and in cases where that statute still governs, a court must determine whether a delay in a trial was acceptable by determining the extent to which the delay was justified.

Defendant appealed his conviction of misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds under former ORS 135.747, which stated that a court shall dismiss charges when a trial does not occur in a reasonable time. That statute, and not the one that replaced it, applied because the provision that repealed it does not apply to cases that were pending when it was repealed, and this case falls within that category. Defendant had been charged on March 8, 2010; arraigned on April 19, 2010; and tried on March 1, 2012. Both the State and Defendant agree that the trial court properly attributed eight months of the delay to Defendant’s own requests for two continuances. The trial court offered an explanation for the remaining sixteen months of delay. It explained that the delay resulted from two other trials that were lengthy, work associated with those trials, and a generally crowded docket. The Court reasoned that the acceptability of the total delay is influenced by the extent to which it was justified. The Court held the trial court offered a sufficient explanation to justify the delay, and accordingly, that the delay was acceptable. Affirmed.