State v. Carvalho, 243 N.C. App. 394 (Oct. 6, 2015)

Applying the four-factor speedy trial test of Barker v. Wingo, the court concluded that no speedy trial violation occurred. The nine year gap between the time of indictment and the hearing on the speedy trial motion is presumptively prejudicial. However while extraordinary, this delay is not per se determinative and an examination of the remaining Barker factors is required. As to the second factor, reason for delay, the defendant failed to show that that the delay stemmed from the State’s negligence or willfulness. The “more significant elements” that contributed to delay included: changing the proceedings from capital to noncapital; plea discussions; forensic issues regarding an audiotape; securing the testimony of the state’s key witness; and the interconnectedness of the two murders. Regarding the third factor, assertion of the speedy trial right, the court noted that the defendant first asserted his right some eight years after he was indicted. Regarding the final factor, prejudice from delay, the court found that the defendant failed to show any affirmative proof of prejudice.