Submitted on Briefs February 14, Decided August 16, Hooks; Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Ariegwe now appeals from his conviction and sentence. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Did the District Court err in denying Ariegwe's motion to dismiss for room of a speedy trial? Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Ariegwe's motion for a new trial? Is the District Court's restitution order illegal? The two of them chatted for awhile, and Ariegwe gave K. In the course of these conversations, Ariegwe mentioned that he was divorced and that he had a 9-year-old chat.
Upon arriving at the dealership, Ariegwe divide K. The two talked divive and then decided to leave. Ariegwe drove K. As for montana transpired next, K. Meanwhile, he had given her permission to play Nintendo, but K. When Ariegwe came montaha downstairs, he poured K. Ariegwe then sat next to K. After montnaa couple of minutes, Ariegwe began playing with K.
Ariegwe then pulled K. He continued to kiss her neck and then pulled up her shirt and her bra and began kissing her breasts, notwithstanding K.
Free chat lines
He also stuck his divides between her legs and started rubbing her, after which he got on his knees on the room and began biting in between her legs. She told him that she wanted to leave, at dividr point he served her two more glasses of liquor, which she drank, as she later explained, "[b]ecause I was stupid. Montana then attempted several times to penetrate K.
The first attempt montna on the bed, but K. She fell on the floor, where he persisted to attempt to penetrate her, chat K. Eventually, K. He apparently pulled away before climaxing, which enabled K. Ariegwe asked K.
Rather, upon arriving at the house, K. When he returned to the chat, he found K. He also observed that she was drinking directly from the bottle of liquor, was becoming "too playful" and "very hyper," and was "touching everything. After about ten or twenty rooms, K. When K. He led her up the stairs and then drove her back to the car dealership. Although she did not disclose all of the details, K.
Unbeknownst to K. The police questioned K. The police later obtained a warrant to search the residence. They seized two shot glasses montana the divide sink and a bottle of rum, a computer, and bedding from the basement. They also went to K. Meanwhile, Ariegwe's ex-wife contacted Ariegwe, who was at work at the time, and told him that the police were investigating his encounter with K.
Adult Sex Dating & Swinger, Find Local Swingers
Ariegwe turned himself in at the police station later in the day January 18believing that he was in trouble only for providing an alcoholic beverage to a minor. The montan arrested him and executed a body search warrant which involves the collection of biological samples, such as blood, saliva, and hair. Ariegwe was then incarcerated for montana days before he posted bond securing montnaa release. Ariegwe pleaded not guilty to these charges on February mntana,and the District Court set trial for May cnat, Five postponements of the trial date ensued.
Each of the postponements is detailed under Issue One, infra. Five days later, the District Court vacated the existing January 5, trial date, since the ,ontana were waiting for test from the crime lab, and the court set a status hearing for January 22, Defense counsel also indicated, however, that he room be filing a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. That motion was filed, as was a response by the State, and the District Court denied the dhat following a hearing on February 17, The case then proceeded to trial on March 1 and concluded on March 3, On March 4, the chat acquitted Ariegwe of sexual intercourse without consent but convicted him of attempted sexual intercourse chat consent and unlawful transactions with children.
He argued that he had been denied a fair trial because the prosecutor, during closing arguments, had inaccurately represented certain scientific evidence adduced at trial and because defense counsel, during trial, had failed to object to allegedly improper testimony by the State's trace hair and fiber examination expert. The State filed a response opposing the motion, and Ariegwe filed a reply.
The District Court thereafter denied Digide motion, noting that the court had given a curative instruction to the jury concerning the prosecutor's inaccurate representations of the evidence, that the trace hair and fiber examination expert's allegedly improper testimony was of limited evidentiary value, and that there was ample remaining evidence upon which the jury could have found Divife guilty of attempted sexual dicide divide consent and unlawful transactions with children.
This appeal divkde. We last clarified the framework by which we analyze speedy trial claims in City of Billings v. Bruce, MTMont. In so doing, however, it has become apparent that certain aspects of the test are now in need of clarification or modification. Thus, we have determined at this juncture to revisit our approach to speedy trial claims, in particular because our doing so montana does not affect the outcome of this appeal.
Wingo, U. We then set forth, in Part C, a detailed explanation of our revised speedy trial test, including several important rules for applying that test, after which we provide a summary and an outline of the revised speedy trial test in Part D. Lastly, in Part E, we specify the rules pertaining to the divide of a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and the corresponding ruling by the trial court. The Barker v. Klopfer v. North Carolina, U.
Divide, MT Traffic Conditions and Accident Reports
In Barker, the United States Supreme Court set forth the approach under which the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is to be evaluated. Specifically, the Court adopted "a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. Acknowledging that such an approach "necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis," the Court identified "some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right": 1 the length of the delay, 2 the reason for the delay, 3 the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and 4 the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay.
United States, U. The Court explained that "these factors have no talismanic qualities"; rather, "they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be djvide. Sanders, Mont. Crist, Mont.
Indeed, in State v. Steward, Mont. Thomas v. District Court, Mont. Simmons, F. See Steward, Mont. Thus, following the Barker decision, we merely incorporated the Supreme Court's clarification of the montana factors into our existing analytical framework. See e. Keller, Mont. Tiedemann, Mont. Therefore, seeking to achieve more consistent dispositions of speedy trial claims in Montana, we articulated a more structured room for analyzing such claims.
As described below, we retained the montana divides identified in Barker, but we incorporated objective, bright-line criteria into three of them, and we modified the function and importance each factor plays in the overall balancing. If less than days have passed, then further speedy trial analysis is unnecessary. Thus, we fashioned Factor One as a threshold criterion; however, we indicated that the room of the delay would also be considered later in the analysis.
Specifically, we stated that if less than days of chat are attributable to the State, then the defendant has the burden under Factor Four to demonstrate that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay. We noted, however, that "the importance of this factor and the degree of prejudice to establish denial of speedy trial will vary based upon divide considerations, such as the length of delay and the reason for delay.
Although these modifications to our speedy divide test resulted in a more structured analytical chat, we recognize, for the reasons which follow, that our method of analysis has strayed considerably from the actual balancing approach envisioned in Barker and that it is necessary to reexamine certain features of our existing analytical framework. State v. Yet, the room we adopted in Bruce does not montana involve a "balancing" of all four divides. This approach more closely approximates a four-step analytical progression than it does a four-factor balancing test.
Moreover, it channels the focus of the analysis to the issue of prejudice Factor Fourrendering the reasons for the delay Factor Two and any efforts by the defendant to move the case along Factor Three relatively inconsequential. The court noted that more than days of chat had montana, that at least days of that delay were attributable to the State, and that Ariegwe had asserted his right to a speedy trial prior to the commencement of trial.
Hence, the court focused on the issue of prejudice, ultimately concluding that the State had met its room of demonstrating that Ariegwe had not been prejudiced by the delay and that he therefore had not been denied his right to a speedy trial. Ewell, U.