Brannen v. State

The 9-month delay between the return of defendant's case to the superior court and her trial was not particularly onerous and she failed to show prejudice due to the alleged unavailability of three witnesses, whom she did not attempt to subpoena until the day before trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Tammy Suzette Brannen was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. In her sole enumeration of error on appeal, Brannen contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment based on an alleged violation of her right to a speedy trial. For reasons that follow, we affirm. The facts of this case were set forth in Brannen v. State ,1 in which our Supreme Court first addressed Brannen’s speedy trial argument. Succinctly stated, the facts show that in August 1995 Brannen was arrested for murder, and she was indicted in December of that year. Following a State-requested continuance, Brannen’s trial was scheduled for December 1999 —52 months after she had been arrested. Brannen moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that the trial violated her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied her motion, and Brannen appealed to the Supreme Court. After balancing the factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo ,2 that Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Brannen’s motion to dismiss.3

The case was returned to the superior court on November 29, 2001. The State contends that it was ready to try the case shortly thereafter, but Brannen was not actually tried until August 2002, approximately nine months later. In her brief, Brannen provides no explanation for the nine month delay. However, the State asserts that Brannen initially requested a continuance to appeal to the United States Supreme Court and that she also requested subsequent continuances.4

Brannen v. State

The 9-month delay between the return of defendant's case to the superior court and her trial was not particularly onerous and she failed to show prejudice due to the alleged unavailability of three witnesses, whom she did not attempt to subpoena until the day before trial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report