# State v. Ariegwe

> Montana Supreme Court · August 16, 2007 · 338 Mont. 442

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511733

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KINGSLEY ARIEGWE, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 16, 2007
- **Citations:** 338 Mont. 442; 167 P.3d 815; 2007 MT 204; 2007 Mont. LEXIS 384
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rice
- **Judges:** James C. Nelson
- **Cited by:** 167 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511733

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that while it was “guided by Barker’s general approach for analyzing speedy trial claims,” it could give its own meaning to Barker *465 factors under its state constitutional speedy-trial provision
- concluding that defendant was not deprived of right to speedy trial where absence of prejudice outweighed length of delay, reasons for delay, and assertion of right

## Opinion text

JUSTICE RICE
specially concurring.
¶ 184 Because I believe the Opinion accurately interprets and states the law, I have joined it. I write only to bemoan the law’s complexity. Incorporation of all the speedy trial factors, as previously and newly interpreted, has led herein to creation of, I fear, the “mother of all balancing tests.” The outline of the principles governing application of the factors which the Court has included in ¶113 is helpful and appreciated, and I regret only that this summary of the test requires three single-spaced pages. I sincerely wish the best to counsel and the trial courts in working with these principles, and in making a record thereof. I also look forward to the day when I see a seminar topic or law review article entitled “Toward a Simpler Speedy Trial Analysis.”
JUSTICE MORRIS, JUSTICE LEAPHART and JUSTICE WARNER join the concurring opinion of JUSTICE RICE.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511733. Public record. Not legal advice.