State v. Ralston

When determining whether a  defendant was denied a speedy trial under Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, courts must consider three factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the prejudice to the defendant. State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 472, 869 P2d 859 (1994).

Defendant appealed a conviction of felony DUII and 14 months elapsed between Defendant’s initial charge and trial. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and alleged that the delay resulted in the loss of video footage that would have benefited his defense. When determining whether a  defendant was denied a  speedy trial under  Article I, Section 10, courts must consider three factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the prejudice to the defendant. State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 472, 869 P2d 859 (1994). The Court found that while the 14-month delay was not inconsequential, and although the State provided no reason for a substantial part of the delay, Defendant did not make the requisite showing of prejudice as a result of the delay or lost video footage. Defendant entered a guilty plea despite the lost video footage, which indicated that he did not believe the footage would exculpate him. Portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay a $2,255 DUII fine vacated; remanded for sentencing; otherwise affirmed.