Speedy Trial (Alleged Violation of Right to)
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Hodge, No. E2022-00303-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2023).
When evaluating whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated, this court considers the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). “If a court determines . . . that a defendant has been denied a speedy trial,” the only available remedy is “the reversal of the conviction and dismissal of the criminal charges” with prejudice. State v. Simmons, 54 S.W.3d 755, 759 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted).
The issue of whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated involves “a mixed question of law and fact.” Moon, 644 S.W.3d at 78. Our standard of review on appeal is “de novo review with respect to whether the court correctly interpreted and applied the law.” Id. We must “give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Id.
State v. Jackson, No. E2022-00298-CCA-R3-CD, p. 21-22 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 13, 2023).
To determine whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, this court conducts the balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). See Moon, 644 S.W.3d at 79; State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Baker, 614 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tenn. 1981). Under the Barker analysis, we weigh the following four factors: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether there was a demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the present and extent of prejudice to the defendant. Moon, 644 S.W.3d at 79 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530). The determination of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated “is a question of law to be determined de novo by a reviewing court.” Id. at 78.
State of Tennessee v Moon, No. M2019-01865-SC-R11-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Apr. 20, 2022).
[T]he standard for appellate review of whether a criminal defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial is de novo review with respect to whether the court correctly interpreted and applied the law. The appellate court should give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. We determine this to be the most appropriate standard because, by nature, a speedy trial violation claim is a mixed question of law and fact. Many of the material facts required to analyze such claims are undisputed and require no discretion by the trial court. Determining whether such facts violate a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is a question of law to be determined de novo by a reviewing court.
