discussing other authorities that “are not har- monious upon the question of whether, in the absence of statutory authority, two or more criminal cases may be consolidated” after discussing the joinder law that prohibits multiple charges in a single indictment (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- discussing other authorities that “are not har- monious upon the question of whether, in the absence of statutory authority, two or more criminal cases may be consolidated” after discussing the joinder law that prohibits multiple charges in a single indictment (emphasis added)
- concluding, in interpreting the same statute, that an accumulation of cases already set may constitute good cause for continuing a criminal case
- determination of whether a trial is “speedy” for purpose of the constitutional provi- sion is a judicial question and not within the powers of the legislature to contemporaneously define by statute
- describing the evolution of the meaning of constitutional speedy trial protections in relation to the statutory protections
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LATOURETTE, C.J.,
specially concurring.
For the reasons stated in my former dissenting opinion I concur in the result.