Henry Bell was arrested for murder in December 1995, but was not indicted until April 1996. In July 1996, he filed a pleading styled as a “Motion to Set Jury Trial.” In August 1999, he moved to dismiss the case pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-171 and, in November of that same year, he also moved to dismiss based upon an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. After a hearing, the trial court granted both motions. The State brings this appeal from the trial court’s dismissal orders.
1. The State contends that Bell’s 1996 motion does not satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-171, because it did not provide the prosecution with adequate notice that he was seeking a speedy trial and not merely a jury trial. Although the pleading does not expressly reference the statute or demand a “speedy” trial, such specifics are unnecessary. “No particular form is required ‘so long as the demand can reasonably be construed as a demand for trial under the provisions of the statute.’ Cit.” Baker v. State, 212 Ga. App. 731, 732 442 SE2d 815 1994 dealing with OCGA § 17-7-170, which applies to non-capital cases. The motion in this case was not misleadingly styled as simply a demand for a jury trial. Compare Kramer v. State, 185 Ga. App. 254 363 SE2d 800 1987. The caption identifies it as a request that the State “set” Bell’s case for a jury trial, and correctly specifies the number of the indictment which charged him with murder. In the body of the motion, he requested that a jury trial be held “in his capital case within the next two terms of court . . . .” This is a demand that the prosecution comply with OCGA § 17-7-171 a. The pleading, considered in its entirety, was clear as to its purpose and the right which it sought to enforce. A motion is sufficient to invoke the extreme sanction of OCGA § 17-7-171 so long as it constitutes a demand to be tried within the next two succeeding terms of court. See Forbus v. State, 250 Ga. 24 295 SE2d 530 1982 approving Court of Appeals’ construction of OCGA § 17-7-170 in State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga. App. 288, 289 290 SE2d 149 1982.
