Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 6, 2006

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument tomorrow in the case of State v. Azbell, and the ensuing decision should clear up some confusion about the speedy trial statute.  In Azbell, the defendant had been arrested at a pharmacy in May of 2003 trying to buy drugs with a phony prescription.  Although she was booked and fingerprinted at that time, no charges were filed.  In January of 2004 she was indicted, and wasn't served with the indictment until April.  The 6th District held that since the speedy trial time runs from the time of arrest, the time for trial ran from her arrest in May, and thus had expired.

If the Supreme Court affirms,


that could have ramifications in the 8th District, because our court has consistently held that speedy trial time does not run unless the person is actually charged with the crime.  (In State v. Fallat, for example, they reached that result despite the fact that the defendant had been in jail for three days before being released.)  I wouldn't get your hopes up, though; I think a reversal by the Supreme Court is likely.

A similar fate probably awaits the 3rd District decision in State v. Cress, also on the docket for argument on Wednesday.  (Bensing's Rule on handicapping Supreme Court decisions:  take the State and give the points.)  The defendant in that case had been arrested for domestic violence against his girlfriend, and subsequently called and told her that he'd tell the police about her drug usage if she didn't drop the charges.  He was then charged with intimidation, which requires the defendant make "an unlawful threat of harm."  The court held that this meant the threat must be illegal in itself, and since the defendant had the legal right to tell the police about his girlfriend's drug usage, the evidence was insufficient to convict.

Finally, a moment's thought for those who landed on the beaches of Normandy fifty-two years ago today, in the last "good war."  As the song says, times were so much simpler then...

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it
  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives