State Ex Rel. Garcia v. Goldman
2010 Mo. LEXIS 190, 316 S.W.3d 907, 2010 WL 2812818 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An excessive post-indictment delay caused by the state's negligence violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and prejudice to the defense may be presumed when the delay is lengthy and results in the loss of witnesses and evidence.
Facts:
- In April 1998, Rigoberto Dominguez was shot with a shotgun at the Sunny China Buffet in Kirkwood.
- Dominguez and two other employees identified the shooter as David Garcia, telling police the motive was a dispute over Garcia's girlfriend.
- Police obtained Garcia's date of birth, driver's license number, and social security number, and were told he might go to Illinois or California.
- After an initial unsuccessful search, police made no serious attempts to locate Garcia for years.
- From at least 2002 onward, Garcia lived and worked openly in Chicago under his own name, using his social security number and filing tax returns.
- In February 2009, a detective entered Garcia's social security number into a computer database and immediately located his Chicago address, leading to his arrest.
- During the years of delay, four of the seven identified witnesses became unavailable, videotaped interviews with two witnesses were lost, and the restaurant where the crime occurred was demolished.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2002, a grand jury indicted David Garcia for first-degree assault in St. Louis County.
- In February 2009, Garcia was arrested and returned to St. Louis County to face trial.
- Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in the circuit court, arguing his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated.
- The circuit court overruled Garcia's motion to dismiss.
- Garcia then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Missouri to compel the circuit court to dismiss the indictment.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a preliminary writ of mandamus.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a seven-year post-indictment delay in arresting a defendant, caused by the state's negligent failure to conduct a simple database search, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial when key witnesses and evidence became unavailable during the delay?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolff, J.
Yes. A seven-year post-indictment delay caused by government negligence violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court applied the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo. First, the seven-year delay is presumptively prejudicial. Second, the reason for the delay weighs heavily against the state, as its failure to use readily available information like Garcia's social security number in a database search for seven years constituted negligence. Third, Garcia asserted his right to a speedy trial in a timely manner after his arrest. Fourth, drawing from Doggett v. United States, the court found that such a long delay caused by government negligence creates a presumption of prejudice. This presumption was bolstered by actual prejudice, as four witnesses disappeared, videotaped interviews were lost, and the crime scene was destroyed, impairing Garcia's ability to prepare a defense. The state failed to rebut this presumption by showing Garcia's defense was left unimpaired.
Dissenting - Price, C.J.
No. The delay does not violate Garcia's speedy trial right because he was the principal cause of it by deliberately fleeing the jurisdiction. Under the second Barker factor, Garcia is more to blame for the delay because he fled to Chicago knowing police would be looking for him. The government is not required to make 'heroic efforts' to find a defendant who is purposely avoiding apprehension. Because Garcia was the primary cause of the delay, he is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice under the fourth factor and must show actual prejudice. Garcia failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice; in fact, the loss of witnesses and evidence is more likely to harm the state's ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the second and fourth factors weigh in favor of the state.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle from Doggett v. United States, establishing that a defendant's right to a speedy trial can be violated by prolonged government negligence, even without a showing of bad faith. It creates a significant precedent by allowing prejudice to be presumed from an extended delay where the state possessed the means to locate the defendant but failed to act with reasonable diligence. The ruling serves as a warning to law enforcement and prosecutors that allowing cases to become 'cold' due to inaction can have constitutional consequences, potentially leading to the dismissal of serious charges. It shifts some of the burden to the state to show a defendant's defense was not impaired by such a delay.
