ILNews

Time spent in federal custody does not interfere with right to speedy trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A defendant’s repeated incarcerations in other jurisdictions did not interfere with his right to a speedy trial in Indiana.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Eddie Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge in Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1210-CR-534. It found Criminal Rule 4(C) did not apply because Spalding was not in the exclusive control of Indiana.

Spalding was arrested on March 7, 2011, and charged with Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. He subsequently missed several court appearances because he was being held in federal custody.

On June 18, 2012, Spalding filed a motion alleging that nearly 400 days had passed since his arrest and all of that delay was attributed to the state. After the trial court denied his motion, he argued in his appeal the time limit for trying him had passed.

The Court of Appeals noted the issue is a question of law which it reviewed de novo.

Spalding cited Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) which prohibits an individual from being held on a criminal charge for more than a year. The state countered that Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply because the time Spalding was in a foreign jurisdiction does not count in Indiana.

The COA noted Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 95 (Ind. 1998) provided that Criminal Rule 4(C) is applicable to defendants in foreign jurisdictions who are brought to Indiana under a writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum or other form of temporary custody. However, in Spalding’s case, Indiana did not have exclusive control so the “Sweeney exception” was not triggered.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT