OPINION
SHARPNACK, Judge.
Robert Jeffrey Pelley appeals his convictions for four counts of murder.1 Pelley raises three issues, which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Pelley’s motion to dismiss, which requested discharge based upon Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C);
I. Whether the trial court erred by denying Pelley’s petition to appoint a special prosecutor;
III. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting hearsay statements of a victim;
IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Pelley’s evidence that someone else may have committed the offenses;
V. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence regarding the delay in bringing charges against Pelley; and
VI. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Pelley’s convictions.
Because we find the first issue dispositive, we need not address the remaining issues. We reverse and remand.
[877]*877The relevant facts follow. In April 1989, seventeen-year-old Pelley lived in Lake-ville, Indiana, with his father, Robert Pel-ley (“Bob”), his stepmother, Dawn, his fourteen-year-old sister, Jacque, and his three stepsisters, nine-year-old Jessica, eight-year-old Janel, and six-year-old Jolene. Bob was the minister of the Olive Branch Church, and the family lived in the parsonage next door to the church.
On Sunday, April 30, 1989, the Pelley family did not appear for church services, and parishioners noticed that the Pelleys’ vehicles were in the driveway, the doors to the house were locked, and the blinds and curtains were drawn. Parishioners obtained a key to the house and found Bob, Dawn, Janel, and Jolene dead from shotgun wounds. Officers located Jessica and Jacque, who had spent the night with Mends, and Pelley, who had attended his senior prom on Saturday night, had spent Saturday night with friends, and had gone to Great America amusement park in Illinois with Mends on Sunday.
Although Pelley was questioned regarding the murders, the State did not charge him until August 7, 2002. At that time, the State charged Pelley with four counts of murder. Pelley was arrested on August 10, 2002. On August 22, 2002, the State issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Family & Children’s Center (“FCC”) seeking the production of “any and all counseling records from the Rev. Robert L. Pelley family from 1986-1989.” Appellant’s Appendix at 245. On February 26, 2003, FCC filed a motion to quash the subpoena, alleging that the communications were privileged based upon the counselor/client privilege, which is codified at Ind.Code § 25-23.6-6-1,2 and the psychologist/patient privilege, which is codified at Ind. Code § 25-33-1-17.3 At a hearing on FCC’s motion to quash, FCC’s attorneys argued that the communications were privileged, while the prosecutor argued that the “homicide exception” applied and that the counselor/client privilege did not apply because the statute came into effect after the communications were made. See Ind. Code §§ 25-23.6-6-1 & 25-33-1-17. The trial court asked for Pelley’s input regarding the documents, and Pelley’s attorney agreed with FCC’s arguments but also objected to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court. After the hearing and an in camera inspection of the FCC documents, the trial court granted [878]*878the motion to quash on March 20, 2003, finding that the communications in the records were privileged.
On April 2, 2003, the State petitioned for certification of the trial court’s order for interlocutory appeal. On April 4, 2003, the trial court certified the order for interlocutory appeal but advised the State that any delay for the interlocutory appeal would be chargeable to the State. Further, the trial court warned the State that the documents “didn’t contain what you wanted them to contain.” Pretrial Transcript at 452; see also Appellant’s Appendix at 285 (“[The] information as is contained in such records does not relate ‘directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide’, whether that phrase is given a more limited meaning, or the more expansive meaning proffered by the State in its Memorandum of Law.”). This court accepted jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and, on motion of the State, stayed the proceedings. Pelley did not participate in the interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s order quashing the subpoena, State v. Pelley, 800 N.E.2d 630 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), but the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer and, on June 14, 2005, reversed in part and affirmed in part, State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.2005). Specifically, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the counselor/client privilege of Ind.Code § 25-23.6-6-1 did not apply because the communications were made prior to the statute’s enactment, that the eoun-selor/client privilege did not have retroactive effect, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the homicide exception in the psychologist/patient privilege statute did not apply. 828 N.E.2d at 920, 922-923. The opinion was certified on July 25, 2005.
Pretrial conferences were then held on August 17, 2005, and October 28, 2005.4 At the October 28th pretrial conference, the parties agreed to a July 10, 2006, trial date. On January 4, 2006, Pelley filed a motion to dismiss requesting discharge under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C). The trial court denied Pelley’s motion to dismiss as follows:
⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜
If the period of months during which the appeal pended were included in the calculation, Defendant is correct in his assertion that a Defendant need not object to a trial setting when the year had already expired. Pearson v. State, [619] N.E.2d 590[, 591-592 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) ].
If however the period of time is tolled by the Interlocutory Appeal, then Defendant’s failure to timely object in October 2005 to the current trial setting would constitute a waiver of his right to object. Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201 [ (Ind.1999) ].
The Court having considered [State ex rel. Cox v. Superior Court of Madison County, 445 N.E.2d 1367 (Ind.1983),] and Martin [v. State, 245 Ind. 224, 194 N.E.2d 721 (1963),] finds that while the Defendant did not cause the delays attendant to the Interlocutory Appeal here, the period of such delay tolls the time period contemplated in C.R. 4.
In Martin, the Supreme Court of Indiana while considering a statute addressing the Defendant’s speedy trial rights; and reiterating the duties of the prosecuting attorney and Trial Court to bring a Defendant to trial in a timely [879]*879fashion, also noted that such rule did not apply to the Appellate Court. The Court noted that neither prosecutor nor Trial Court could exercise any control over the judicial process in the Supreme Court.[ ]
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Appellant’s Appendix at 487-488 (footnote omitted). In a footnote, the trial court noted:
It should be further noted that the Indiana Court of Appeals entered a Stay of Proceedings on June 19, 2008 precluding the trial court from exercising jurisdiction herein pending resolution of the appeal. Though the grounds for the issuance of the stay are not a part of the record, this court assumes that the Appellate Court was aware that such stay would interfere with observance of the Defendant’s C.R. 4(C) Rights.
Id. at 488 n. 3.
On June 29, 2006, Pelley filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus, a Petition for Emergency Writ, and a brief in support with the Indiana Supreme Court. Pelley argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss based upon Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C). The Indiana Supreme Court denied Pelley’s petition.
Pelley’s jury trial began on July 10, 2006. The jury found Pelley guilty as charged. The trial court then sentenced Pelley to serve consecutive forty-year sentences for an aggregate sentence of 160 years. Pelley filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Pelley’s motion to dismiss, which requested discharge based upon Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C). Before addressing the parties’ specific arguments regarding Rule 4(C), we must first address the State’s argument that this issue is barred by res judi-cata because Pelley raised this issue in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.
The doctrine of res judicata bars a later suit when an earlier suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, was based on proper jurisdiction, and involved the same cause of action and the same parties as the later suit. Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1194 (Ind.2006). The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute. Id. We conclude that res judicata does not bar our consideration of Pelley’s argument because Pelley’s petition for writ of mandamus did not result in a final judgment on the merits.
Pelley’s petition was brought as an original action. Such an action “is an extraordinary remedy, equitable in nature, and viewed with disfavor.” State ex rel. Hoffman v. Allen Circuit Court, 868 N.E.2d 470, 472 (Ind.2007); Ind. Original Action Rule 2(E) (“Original actions are viewed with disfavor and may not be used as substitutes for appeals.”). There are six general requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition: (1) a showing that the Indiana Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter; (2) the writ is sought expeditiously; (3) the respondent court has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to act when it was under a duty to act; (4) the absence of jurisdiction or failure to act was raised in a written motion before the respondent court and the motion was denied or not timely ruled on; (5) the denial of a writ will result in extreme hardship; and (6) the remedy available by appeal will be wholly inadequate. See Ind. Original Action Rule 3(A); see also Haddix v. State, 827 N.E.2d 1160, 1166 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied.
[880]*880Here, the Indiana Supreme Court did not explain the basis for its denial of Pel-ley’s petition for writ of mandamus. For us to conclude that res judicata bars Pel-ley’s argument, we would have to conclude that the Indiana Supreme Court denied Pelley’s petition for writ of mandamus because the trial court did not have a duty to grant Pelley’s motion for discharge under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C). However, two other possibilities exist. The Indiana Supreme Court could have denied the petition because the denial of the writ would not result in extreme hardship or because the remedy available by appeal was adequate. See, e.g., Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201, 1204 n. 5 (Ind.1999) (holding that the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to discharge under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) was not barred by the law of the case even though the Indiana Supreme Court had previously rejected the defendant’s original action, “[njoting that an original action may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, that the defendant claimed that certain continuances were made necessary because of the prosecutor’s action, and that the ‘face of the record does not justify such an assertion’ ”). On this record, we cannot conclude that the Indiana Supreme Court rendered a judgment on the merits or that Pelley’s claim is barred by res judicata. Consequently, we will address Pelley’s argument regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, which requested discharge under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C).
The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution.5 Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548, 551 (Ind.1995). “This fundamental principle of constitutional law has long been zealously guarded by this Court.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “To this end, the provisions of Indiana Criminal Rule 4 implement the defendant’s speedy trial right.” Id. “Criminal Rule 4 exists in order to implement the basic right to speedy trial of those accused of crime and who are therefore in confinement or restrained on recognizance. Criminal justice must be administered by the courts with the highest regard for this constitutional right.” Huffman v. State, 502 N.E.2d 906, 907 (Ind.1987) (quoting Gill v. State, 267 Ind. 160, 165, 368 N.E.2d 1159, 1161 (1977)), reh’g denied.
Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) provides: No person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his [881]*881motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall file a timely motion for continuance as under subdivision (A) of this rule. Provided further, that a trial court may take note of congestion or an emergency without the necessity of a motion, and upon so finding may order a continuance. Any continuance granted due to a congested calendar or emergency shall be reduced to an order, which order shall also set the case for trial within a reasonable time. Any defendant so held shall, on motion, be discharged.
“The rule places an affirmative duty on the State to bring a defendant to trial within one year of being charged or arrested, but allows for extensions of that time for various reasons.” Cook v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1064, 1065 (Ind.2004) (citing Ritchison v. State, 708 N.E.2d 604, 606 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied). For instance, “[i]f a delay is caused by the defendant’s own motion or action, the one-year time limit is extended accordingly.” Id. at 1066 (quoting Frisbie v. State, 687 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), reh’g denied, trans. denied).
Pelley argues that his rights under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) were violated by the 1430-day delay between his arrest and the start of his trial. The majority of this time was consumed by the State’s interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s grant of FCC’s motion to quash. Specifically, the trial court granted the State’s petition to certify fe order for interlocutory appeal on April 4, 2003, and the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion was issued on June 14, 2005, and certified on July 25, 2005, resulting in a delay of either 802 days or 843 days.
The State concedes that the delay caused by its interlocutory appeal is “the critical, dispositive inquiry” in this issue. Appellee’s Brief at 23. After the Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion, a pretrial conference was held on October 28, 2005, and the parties agreed to a July 10, 2006, trial date. If the interlocutory appeal is chargeable to Pelley, the one-year period under Rule 4(C) had not yet expired at the time of the pretrial conference.6 “When a trial court, acting within the one-year period of the rule, schedules trial to begin beyond the one-year limit, the defendant must make a timely objection to the trial date or waive his right to a speedy trial.” Vermillion, 719 N.E.2d at 1204. Thus, Pelley would have waived his rights under Rule 4(C) by failing to object to the trial date. However, if the interlocutory appeal is chargeable to the State, the one-year period under Rule 4(C) would have already expired at the time of the October 2005 pretrial conference. A defendant has no duty to object to the setting of a belated trial date when the act of setting such date occurs after the time expires such that the court cannot reset the trial date within the time allotted by the rule. Young v. State, 765 N.E.2d 673, 679 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Thus, Pelley’s motion to dismiss would have been timely.
Whether the delay for the State’s interlocutory appeal regarding a third-par[882]*882ty’s motion to quash is chargeable to Pel-ley or the State under Rule 4(C) is an issue of first impression in this State. In arguing that the time is chargeable to Pelley, the State relies upon Martin v. State, 245 Ind. 224, 194 N.E.2d 721 (1963), and State ex rel. Cox v. Superior Court of Madison County, 445 N.E.2d 1367 (Ind.1983).
In Martin, relying upon a prior version of Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C), the defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because “more than three terms of court had elapsed without trial, and without fault of [defendant].” 245 Ind. at 227,194 N.E.2d at 723. The delay was caused when the State filed a motion for change of judge, the special judge denied the motion, and the State filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Id. at 228, 194 N.E.2d at 723. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the State was entitled to the change of judge and issued a writ. Id. The defendant then argued that he was entitled to discharge due to the delay in his trial. Id., 194 N.E.2d at 724.
On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant and held:
Although in the proceedings for a writ of mandamus, the trial judge, and not the appellant here, was named as respondent, we judicially know that ordinarily the adverse parties in the action before the court are the real parties in interest in resisting the action which the petitioner would require of the trial court. In this particular case, this court not only had judicial knowledge of the normal interest of the appellant in the proceedings; here the attorneys for appellant, as shown by the record, actually represented the respondent judge in opposing the remedial action to which the relator was entitled. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot, with propriety, deny that the delay occasioned by these proceedings was chargeable to him.
Id. Further, the court noted that the statute “cast an imperative duty upon the state and its officers, the trial couHs and prosecuting attorneys, to see that a defendant held on recognizance is brought to trial....” Id. at 229, 194 N.E.2d at 724 (emphasis in original). Emphasizing that the “responsibility for bringing the action to trial is thrust upon the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge” and neither “could exercise any control over the judicial process in [the appellate] court,” the court noted:
To hold that any proceedings filed by the state in this court must count as termtime, within the contemplation of the statute, would amount to applying the statutory proscription in many, if not a majority, of the cases brought before this court, since the procedural process in bringing an action to this court, and the deliberative period required for an adjudication of the issues presented, would normally exceed the period of two or three terms of the trial court, as specified in the statute. It is inconceivable that such was the intention of the legislature which enacted the law.
Id. at 229-230, 194 N.E.2d at 724. The Indiana Supreme Court then concluded with: “This court has held that where the appellant sets in motion the chain of events that causes the delay, he is not entitled to discharge under § 9-1403 [predecessor to Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) ].” Id. at 230, 194 N.E.2d at 724. However, the facts of the case do not reveal any action on the part of the defendant to “set in motion” the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Rather, the defendant’s attorneys actively resisted the petition by representing the respondent judge during the mandamus action.
[883]*883In Cox, the defendant filed a motion in limine, which the trial court granted. 445 N.E.2d at 1368. The State then took an interlocutory appeal regarding the motion in limine. Id. The defendant filed a motion for discharge, which the trial court denied. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued that the time required for the State’s interlocutory appeal was not attributable to him. Id. The Indiana Supreme Court first noted: “Whether the acts causing the delay are meritorious or justifiable is of no moment. It is the effect of those acts that determines whether the delay is attributable to the defendant.” Id. The court then noted that where the defendant sets in motion a chain of events resulting in delay, the delay is chargeable to the defendant. Id. (citing Bradberry v. State, 266 Ind. 530, 364 N.E.2d 1183 (1977)). Relying upon Martin, the court held that the defendant was “properly charged with the delay occasioned by the State’s appeal of the favorable ruling on his motion in limine. The time limitation is tolled pending the State’s interlocutory appeal.” Id. at 1369.
Here, the State issued a subpoena duces tecum to FCC regarding the counseling records of Pelley, his father, and his stepmother, and FCC filed a petition to quash the subpoena due to a claim of counsel- or/client privilege and psychologist/patient privilege. At a hearing on FCC’s petition, FCC’s attorneys and the State presented arguments. In response to an inquiry by the trial court, Pelley’s attorney agreed with FCC’s arguments and also objected to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court. After the trial court quashed the subpoena, the State received permission to file an interlocutory appeal, and Pelley did not participate in the appeal.
Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) allocates a delay to the defendant if the “delay was caused by his act.” In Martin, the defendant’s attorneys participated in the appeal, and in Cox, the defendant’s motion in limine led to the appeal. Here, Pelley did not file the motion to quash, and neither Pelley nor his attorneys were involved in the appeal. Pelley’s sole involvement in FCC’s motion to quash was his attorney’s statements at the hearing on the motion.
Despite Pelley’s lack of involvement in the motion to quash or interlocutory appeal, the State contends that Pelley was the real party in interest and that FCC was acting on Pelley’s behalf because Pel-ley, as the patient, held the privilege. Granted, under FCC’s interpretation of the privilege statutes, FCC could have disclosed Pelley’s counseling and psychological records if Pelley had given his express consent. See Ind.Code §§ 25-23.6-6-1(6)(A), 25-33-1-17(5); Summerlin v. State, 256 Ind. 652, 657, 271 N.E.2d 411, 413 (1971) (noting that “the doctor-patient privilege belongs to the patient only which he may waive”). Pelley could not, however, give consent for the release of his father and stepmother’s counseling records. See Ind.Code §§ 25-23.6-6-1(6)(B), 25-33-1-17(5) (“[I]n the case of a client’s death or disability,” a counselor or psychologist may disclose privileged communications with “the express consent of the client’s legal representative.”). While Pel-ley obviously had an interest in the privacy of his mental health records, FCC also had an interest in complying with its statutory obligations. Although the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the counselor privilege did not apply, see Pel-ley, 828 N.E.2d at 920, the issue was not settled at the time of FCC’s motion to quash. Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the communications between FCC’s psychologist and the Pelley family were privileged and not discoverable. Improper disclosure of the materials could have subjected FCC to liability. See, e.g., Munsell [884]*884v. Hambright, 776 N.E.2d 1272, 1279 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (discussing a patient’s negligence claim against mental health professionals which alleged several theories of negligence per se for breaching the statutory duty of mental health professionals to maintain confidentiality and noting that “a non-excused or non-justified violation of a duty prescribed by statute or ordinance is negligence per se”), trans. denied.
Moreover, as Pelley notes, the State’s argument that he was the real party in interest and could have waived his privilege to avoid the delay places him in the “untenable” position of choosing between waiving his counselor/client and psycholo-gisi/patient privileges or his right to a speedy trial under Rule 4(C). Appellant’s Reply Brief at 14. We reached a similar conclusion in Marshall v. State, 759 N.E.2d 665 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). There, the defendant’s trial date was continued for the State to provide discovery regarding DNA testing that it had performed. 759 N.E.2d at 670. We held that the delay was chargeable to the State because:
Holding the State accountable for this delay is consistent with our holding in Biggs v. State, 546 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). As we noted in Biggs:
[t]o put [a defendant] in a position whereby [he] must either go to trial unprepared due to the State’s failure to respond to discovery requests or be prepared to waive [his right] to a speedy trial, is to put the defendants in an untenable situation.
Id. at 1275. Consequently, we will not charge Marshall with the delay from September 12, 2000 to November 21, 2000, because the trial court’s CCS entry clearly charged this delay to the State.
Id. As in Marshall, Pelley should not have been required to choose between his rights. We cannot conclude that Pelley was the real party in interest or that he was responsible for the delay based upon his minimal involvement at FCC’s hearing.7
The State also argues that, as in Martin, the delay due to the interlocutory appeal is not chargeable to it because it had no control over the length of the appellate process. The basis for the decision in Martin was the fact that the defendant’s counsel represented the trial judge in the mandamus action. See Martin, 245 Ind. at 228, 194 N.E.2d at 724. The court’s comments regarding the State having no control over the length of the appellate process were dicta. The comments also conflict with the language of Rule 4(C) and more recent pronouncements of the Indiana Supreme Court regarding assigning delays to a defendant where the defendant takes action resulting in a delay.8 See, e.g., Cook, 810 N.E.2d at 1066-1067 (holding that when “a defendant takes action which delays the proceeding, that time is chargeable to the defendant and extends [885]*885the one-year time limit, regardless of whether a trial date has been set at the time or not”); Huffman, 502 N.E.2d at 908 (holding that the defendant was entitled to discharge under Rule 4(C) where no delay was attributable to the defendant).
Moreover, the State’s interpretation of Martin would create a blanket exception under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C) for delays caused by interlocutory appeals. Although some states have such blanket exceptions, Indiana does not. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3604 (“The time during which an appeal by the prosecution is pending shall not be counted for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to discharge under K.S.A. 22-3402 and amendments thereto.”). In order to accept the State’s argument, we would have to rewrite Rule 4(C) to include a blanket exception for interlocutory appeals. “When construing procedural rules, it is appropriate to look to established principles of statutory construction.” Johnson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. “Criminal statutes ‘cannot be enlarged by construction, implication, or intendment beyond the fair meaning of the language used.’ ” Id. (quoting Gore v. State, 456 N.E.2d 1030, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.1983)). We are constrained to interpret and apply the rule as it is written. Consequently, we cannot write in a blanket exception for interlocutory appeals.
The State argues that this interpretation impairs its ability to initiate interlocutory appeals in criminal cases. See Ind.Code § 35-38-4-2(6) (authorizing the State to take an interlocutory appeal “if the trial court certifies and the court on appeal or a judge thereof finds on petition that: (A) the appellant will suffer substantial expense, damage, or injury if the order is erroneous and the determination thereof is withheld until after judgment; (B) the order involves a substantial question of law, the early determination of which will promote a more orderly disposition of the case; or (C) the remedy by appeal after judgment is otherwise inadequate”). We emphasize the unusual circumstances of this case. In most cases, the defendant will be a participant in the interlocutory appeal or the interlocutory appeal will be set into motion by a defendant’s motion or actions. See Cox, 445 N.E.2d at 1368 (noting that, where the defendant sets in motion a chain of events resulting in delay, the delay is chargeable to the defendant). Here, the interlocutory appeal concerned a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum filed by a third party. Moreover, the State’s substantial delay in seeking the counseling records was an unusual circumstance. Although the State could have sought the records in the thirteen years between the murders and the time Pelley was charged and avoided the delay at issue here, the State did not do so. See Ind.Code § 33-39-1-4 (authorizing a prosecutor to obtain investigative pre-charge subpoenas duces tecum) (formerly Ind.Code § 33-14-1-3 (repealed by Pub.L. No. 98-2004, § 164)); Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131, 1136-1138 (Ind.2000) (discussing investigative pre-charge subpoenas duces tecum), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 814, 122 S.Ct. 38, 151 L.Ed.2d 12 (2001).
We conclude that Pelley was not responsible for the delay caused by the interlocutory appeal. In so concluding, we find the Indiana Supreme Court’s comments in Huffman fitting here:
This case confronts this Court with an extremely unpleasant but compelling responsibility. We realize that the defendant was ultimately convicted following an arduous jury trial. Such cases extract an enormous personal toll from the witnesses, jurors, and others participat[886]*886ing. Resulting costs are significant and burden our taxpayers, and the time devoted to such trials and subsequent proceedings operate to delay the resolution of other pending controversies. It is with extreme reluctance that we must consider setting aside the defendant’s conviction, thus rendering futile the results of the jury trial which found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
502 N.E.2d at 908. The one-year period under Rule 4(C) had already expired when Pelley agreed to the July 2006 trial date during the October 2005 pretrial conference. Pelley had no duty to object at that time, and his January 2006 motion to dismiss was timely. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Pelley’s motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Young v. State, 521 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind.1988) (“Young’s action did not cause his [public defender’s] resignation, and he cannot be charged with this delay.”); Marshall, 759 N.E.2d at 670-671 (charging a delay to the State where the State filed a motion for continuance due to the State’s inability to comply with the defendant’s discovery request); Haston v. State, 695 N.E.2d 1042, 1044 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (attributing delay to the State where the defendant failed to perfect his interlocutory appeal but the trial date was not reset for more than three years).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Pelley’s motion to dismiss, which requested discharge under Ind. Criminal Rule 4(C), and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant Pelley’s motion to dismiss.
Reversed and remanded.
RILEY, J. concurs.
FRIEDLANDER, J. dissents with separate opinion.