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

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture