State v. Melecio

Under State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896 (1984) and ORS 135.748(1)(e)(B), whether the state has unreasonably delayed the execution of a warrant and trial turn on whether the state has knowledge of or could reasonably found with minimal effort or sufficient due diligence, the defendant’s location.

Defendant appealed convictions for giving false information to a peace officer, resisting arrest, interference with a peace officer, and second-degree criminal trespass. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motions to dismiss for untimely prosecution and lack of speedy trial, motion to suppress, and motion for judgment of acquittal on the criminal trespass charge. On appeal, Defendant argued the state unreasonably delayed executing an arrest warrant for him, failed to bring him to trial within two years of commencing prosecution, that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he trespassed, and that there was no evidence that the property purportedly trespassed on was not open to the public. In response, the state argued that it had no information on Defendant’s whereabouts between the issuance of the warrant and his arrest such that there was not an unreasonable delay in executing the warrant and that the time in the interim was exempted from the two years it had to bring Defendant to trial, and that the evidence supported the officer’s reasonable suspicion and all elements of second-degree criminal trespass. Under State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896 (1984) and ORS 135.748(1)(e)(B), whether the state has unreasonably delayed the execution of a warrant and trial turn on whether the state has knowledge of or could reasonably found with minimal effort or sufficient due diligence, the defendant’s location. The Court determined that the state did not know where Defendant was between the issuance of the warrant and execution thereof and could not have found such information because he was houseless and did not maintain a consistent residence. The Court found no legal error in the trial court’s actions on the motion to suppress and motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.