State v. Krieger

"Under Article I, section 10, [the Court] consider[s] three factors in evaluating a speedy trial claim: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the resulting prejudice to the defendant." State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987).

Defendant appealed both a driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and a giving false information to a police officer conviction. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy-trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that a six-year delay in prosecuting him violated his statutory and federal rights to a speedy trial because the delay was substantially long, he was incarcerated in a New York which was not attributable to him, and he was prejudiced by these factors.. "Under Article I, section 10, [the Court] consider[s] three factors in evaluating a speedy trial claim: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the resulting prejudice to the defendant." State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987). The Court found that Defendant did not establish a significant degree of prejudice to warrant the dismissal. The Court asserted that Defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements of ORS 135.748 because his statutory argument was sufficiently preserved and he failed to appear in Court, as the statutory interpretation defines. Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the speedy-trial claim. Affirmed.