AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was indicted for possession and conspiracy to commit possession of a controlled substance, tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was accepted into a Preprosecution Diversion Program (PDP) after waiving her rights to a speedy trial and a trial under the six-month rule. However, her participation in the PDP was terminated due to non-compliance with its terms, and she was subsequently reindicted on the same charges (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 11, 1993: The court dismissed the second indictment with prejudice, concluding that the six-month rule required trial to commence within six months of the Defendant's termination from the PDP (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the Defendant's waiver of arraignment on the second indictment, as the first indictment was dismissed for reasons unrelated to delay or circumvention of the six-month rule. The State contended that the second indictment initiated a new six-month period (para 7).
• Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the six-month period began upon her termination from the PDP, as per the Supreme Court rule, and that the second indictment was a continuation of the original proceedings, not a new case (paras 5, 9-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the six-month rule under SCRA 1986, 5-604(B) was correctly applied to the facts of the case.
• Whether the second indictment initiated a new six-month period or was a continuation of the original proceedings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for reinstatement of the charges against the Defendant (para 20).

Reasons

Per Minzner CJ (Donnelly and Bivins JJ. concurring):

• The Court analyzed the six-month rule under SCRA 5-604(B) and determined that the rule's purpose is to ensure prompt trials while allowing flexibility in cases involving PDPs. The Court found that the State acted in good faith by dismissing the first indictment upon the Defendant's acceptance into the PDP and that this dismissal was not intended to circumvent the six-month rule (paras 8, 20).
• The Court distinguished prior cases, such as State v. Hastings and State v. Lucero, noting that those cases did not involve PDPs or the dismissal of charges. The Court emphasized that the State's dismissal of the first indictment was consistent with public policy supporting PDPs and did not preclude the initiation of a new six-month period upon reindictment (paras 10-14, 19).
• The Court concluded that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the Defendant's waiver of arraignment on the second indictment, as per SCRA 5-604(B)(1), rather than from the date of her termination from the PDP (paras 19-20).