State v. Smith

hi respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the trial court’s ruling and remand the matter for an evi-dentiary hearing. My review of the present set of facts and analysis of the Barker factors differs from the majority. First, I disagree with the majority’s methodology for calculating the length of delay. Second, I find the State fails to prove ■ it made reasonably diligent efforts to bring Mr. Smith to trial; thus, the reason for the delay weighs against the State. Third, I find Mr. Smith is not required to establish specific prejudice to his defense.1 Explained in greater…