Ditman v. State

The 36-month delay prejudiced the defendant because he was not unable to locate a material witness, whose testimony would have lent credence to his claim that he did not sexually abuse the witness's child.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Cory Lee Ditman was arrested and indicted on one count of aggravated child molestation1 and one count of child molestation.2 After nearly 20 months passed without a trial, Ditman filed a motion for discharge and acquittal on the basis that the State had violated his Constitutional right to a speedy trial. He appeals the order denying that motion, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, had not been violated. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court’s order. A trial court’s ruling as to whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Hester v. State .3 The deference owed the trial court’s ruling is diminished, however, where it contains factual findings that are either clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record, or where it misstates or misapplies the law. Id. See also State v. Stallworth 4 a “trial court abuses its discretion when it rules without evidence to support the ruling or contrary to law or equity”.

The record in this matter shows that Ditman was arrested on October 11, 2005, on charges that he committed acts of aggravated child molestation on M. C., who was the three-year-old son of his girlfriend, Melanie Corl. He was initially held without bond, but on November 1, 2005, a bond was set in the amount of $150,000. Unable to post bond, Ditman remained in custody. On March 10, 2006, his bond was reduced to $85,000, but he was still unable to post bond and thus remained in custody. On May 4, 2006, Ditman was indicted on one count of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation. At Ditman’s May 22, 2006 arraignment, his retained counsel filed a demand for reciprocal discovery, pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-1 et seq., and a demand for speedy trial, pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-170.

Ditman v. State

The 36-month delay prejudiced the defendant because he was not unable to locate a material witness, whose testimony would have lent credence to his claim that he did not sexually abuse the witness's child.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report