State of Maine v. Paton

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 26, 2008
• Docket: CUMcr-06-2742
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

'!~'

c, (

STATE OF MAINE " SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss I CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-06-2742 V"'"

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS JAMES PATON,

Defendant

The defendant argues the complaint against him should be dismissed for failure

to prosecute. The date of the alleged offense is 7/23/06; the date of the complaint is

9/8/06. A jury trial request and other motions were filed by the defendant on 9/20/06.

No further action occurred in this case until the defendant's attorney requested by letter

dated 10/22/07 that the matter be scheduled for hearing. The defendant relies on the

defendant's affidavit and argument presented at the hearing.

The four-part balancing test is applied to determine whether the defendant has

been deprived of a speedy trial. See State v. Willoughby, 507 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Me. 1986)

(citing State v. Murphy, 496 A.2d 623, 627 (Me. 1985)). The delay in this case is

sufficiently long to raise an inference of prejudice. See State v. Beauchene, 541 A.2d 914,

918 (Me. 1988); Willoughby, 507 A.2d at 1064-65. The delay is not, however, chargeable

to the State. This case appears to have been "lost" in the system. The State did not

pursue the case and the defendant did not request a speedy trial. 1 The defendant filed a

request for hearing on 10/22/07. See State v. Carisio, 552 A.2d 23, 26 (Me. 1988);

1 A jury trial request and a letter requesting a hearing are not t~ -b~\trv~l¥gt oLa r,equest .for a speedy trial. Attest -<:,;',;,',,-;/ ;". .' ­ /)'1.-,,.1.- .. : - '.;. V '-'Ivi P. L"l .....' _.l' l._ Beauchene, 541 A.2d at 918-19; Willoughby, 507 A.2d at 1065-66; see also Murphy, 496

A.2d at 629 ("concurrent inattention" to case on part of State and defendant).

Finally, the defendant is not incarcerated. He does not suggest in his affidavit

that his defense is impaired. He does state that his potential employment in the United

States may be jeopardized by the pendency of this case. See Beauchene, 541 A.2d at 919;

Willoughby, 507 A.2d at 1064; Carisio, 552 A.2d at 26. Although the defendant has no

obligation to bring himself to trial, his failure to request a speedy trial diminishes the

claim of prejudice. See Murphy, 496 A.2d at 26.

The entry is

The Defendant's Motion to DISNIISS is DENIED.

Date: February 26, 2008 ~----- Justice, Superior Court

//,' ') ?t:,.:..'-'l ~ ~ /1;'/; /.­ ~'"\.;~;"' C, , __•• j ~~-'t'=~