Speedy trial; MCL 768.1; MCR 6.004(A); People v Williams; Principle that when a case is more complex, more delay is tolerated; People v Cooper; Prejudice; People v Collins; Motion for a mistrial; Motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; People v Cress; A “material, exculpatory connection”; People v Grissom; Actual innocence; Herrera v Collins

The court held that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motions for a mistrial or a new trial, and that his claim of actual innocence was meritless. He was convicted of second-degree murder, armed robbery, second-degree arson, fourth-degree arson, FIP, and four counts of felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 60 to 90 years for the second-degree murder conviction and 40 to 60 years each for the armed robbery, arson, and FIP convictions, to be served consecutively to 4 concurrent prison terms of 2 years each for the felony-firearm convictions. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated. “On balance, despite defendant’s timely assertion of his right to a speedy trial, considering the length of the delay in the context of the complexities of the case, the fact that the delay was mostly attributable to a need to have a large number of evidentiary items forensically examined, and defendant’s failure to establish any prejudice to his defense because of the delay, the trial court did not err by ruling that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated.” In addition, the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial and instead allowing a brief adjournment so that defendant would have time to review and respond to the new evidence.” Further, ample evidence supported that no reasonable juror could find his codefendant’s recanting testimony credible on retrial. Finally, defendant was not entitled to relief on the basis of actual innocence. Affirmed.