State v. Marshall

The trial court did not err in concluding that the defendants had not waived their statutory demand for a speedy trial and that they therefore were entitled to an automatic discharge and acquittal when the deadline passed for them to be tried in accordance with their speedy trial demands.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The trial court entered orders of discharge and acquittal in the criminal cases of Cloyd Marshall and Jessica Lucas on the ground that their statutory rights to a speedy trial had been violated. The State now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in ordering the discharge and acquittal of the defendants’ cases because the defendants waived their statutory demands for a speedy trial. Both criminal cases involve the same legal question on appeal – whether the defendants waived their statutory demands for a speedy trial when they received a case management order with a trial date scheduled outside the term in which they had to be tried, but did not object to the order. As explained below, we answer that question in the negative because our precedent clearly establishes that remaining silent and failing to object is an insufficient affirmative act to waive a defendant’s statutory demand for a speedy trial. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of discharge and acquittal entered by the trial court.

The record reflects that on February 27, 2015, Marshall was indicted in the Superior Court of Fulton County for false imprisonment, kidnapping, family violence battery, and cruelty to children, and on March 17, 2015, Lucas was indicted in the same court for aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and simple battery.1 Following their indictments, Marshall and Lucas, through the same appointed counsel, filed statutory demands for speedy trial on March 24, 2015, and April 3, 2015, respectively.

State v. Marshall

The trial court did not err in concluding that the defendants had not waived their statutory demand for a speedy trial and that they therefore were entitled to an automatic discharge and acquittal when the deadline passed for them to be tried in accordance with their speedy trial demands.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report