State v. Swisher

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Swisher

672 P.2d 1054, 105 Idaho 724, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 538

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1983

DocketNo. 14616

StatusPublished

This text of 672 P.2d 1054 (State v. Swisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Swisher, 672 P.2d 1054, 105 Idaho 724, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 538 (Idaho 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State challenges the district court’s dismissal for delay in bringing the defendant to a second trial following a first trial which culminated in a jury’s acquitting on two of four felony counts and an order of mistrial on the remaining two counts.

The State contends — not that the prosecutor made a sufficient showing of good cause to justify the delay attributable to the State and to the court — but that the trial court did not properly evaluate the [725]*725prosecutor’s showing. Even without our applying the presumption of regularity which attends an inquiry as to the validity of a district court judgment, we are left unpersuaded by the State’s appellate argument. This case having little if any precedential value, we perceive no purpose to be served by detailing the chronology of proceedings or the prosecutor’s proffered showing — which we have reviewed. Finding no error,

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The State challenges the district court’s dismissal for delay in bringing the defendant to a second trial following a first trial which culminated in a jury’s acquitting on two of four felony counts and an order of mistrial on the remaining two counts.

The State contends — not that the prosecutor made a sufficient showing of good cause to justify the delay attributable to the State and to the court — but that the trial court did not properly evaluate the [725]*725prosecutor’s showing. Even without our applying the presumption of regularity which attends an inquiry as to the validity of a district court judgment, we are left unpersuaded by the State’s appellate argument. This case having little if any precedential value, we perceive no purpose to be served by detailing the chronology of proceedings or the prosecutor’s proffered showing — which we have reviewed. Finding no error,

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 P.2d 1054, 105 Idaho 724, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-swisher-idaho-1983.