Cited by

See Parker, 231 Ariz. at 399 ¶ 18 (trial occurring “almost four years” after defendant charged with murder, during which he was in custody, did not show Sixth Amendment violation); (noting five years’ pretrial detention “may have increased defendant’s anxiety[,] .

But neither constitution “requires that a trial be held within a specified time period.” ¶ 9 (2013) (“There is no bright line rule for how quickly a trial must occur.”).

-42 (1997) (superior court abused its discretion by admitting “unduly disturbing” photographs of the murder victim’s severely decomposed body, that provided “little or no additional aid” to the medical examiner’s clear testimony); Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 287-90 (superior court abused its discretion in admitting phot

(explaining that absent abuse of discretion, reviewing courts will not “‘second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.’”) ().

¶ 27 (2017); –42 (1997).

DISCUSSION ¶6 Although Lallande raises multiple arguments addressing the merits of his case,4 the sole issue on appeal is whether the superior court requires that a trial be held within a specified time period.” (citations omitted).

Although the details of a victim’s cause of death tend to be tragic, such evidence is admissible unless presented “for the sole purpose of inflaming the jury.” (noting the facts surrounding a victim’s cause of death are always relevant in a homicide case).

¶ 8 (App. 1998) ([W]e will not reverse [a continuance] on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse [of discretion] and resulting prejudice.”); –40 (1997) (Courts consider four factors in speedy trial claims: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has demanded a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant”).

Littlehale contends we must review for an abuse of discretion, (trial courts have broad discretion in admitting photographs), while the State argues Littlehale’s “general” objection at trial did not preserve the issue for appeal absent fundamental error

(holding, despite five years between his arraignment and trial, defendant waived his rights under Rule 8 by not objecting until the month trial was set to begin).

P. 8; (compared to federal constitution).

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530–32 (1972)

“[A]ny photograph of the deceased in any murder case [is relevant] because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” ( superseded by statute on other grounds).

(holding that 45-minute detention was reasonable under the circumstances).