The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled on the case of State of Alabama v. Jeri Bonar, reversing a lower court's decision to dismiss charges against her. This ruling affects Bonar, who faces serious allegations, and highlights the complexities surrounding the right to a speedy trial in the state.
The case began when Bonar was arrested in April 2015 on charges of second-degree possession of a forged instrument and first-degree theft of property. After her arrest, Bonar sought admission to a mental health court, which led to her release to a residential substance-abuse facility, despite the State's objections. The Jefferson District Court later transferred her case to Judge Stephen Wallace for Mental Health Court. However, Bonar failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in December 2015, prompting the court to issue an alias warrant for her arrest. In May 2017, the case was bound over to the circuit court, awaiting action by the grand jury.
In February 2018, the State moved to recall the alias writ of arrest after the grand jury indicted Bonar. However, it wasn't until December 2021 that Bonar's counsel first moved to dismiss the charges, claiming a violation of her right to a speedy trial. This motion was denied by Circuit Judge Shanta Owens. A subsequent motion in August 2023 was granted by Circuit Judge Kandice E. Pickett, leading the State to appeal the dismissal.
On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, led by Judge Minor, examined whether the lower court had erred in dismissing the charges. The court held that the circuit court had indeed made a mistake by concluding that the State had violated Bonar's right to a speedy trial. The court stated, "We hold that the circuit court erred by finding that the State violated Bonar's right to a speedy trial. Thus, we reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings." This ruling clarifies the procedural confusion regarding which court had jurisdiction over the motion to dismiss, confirming that it was the circuit court that had the authority to act.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of the speedy trial right, as guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and the Alabama Constitution. The court analyzed the four factors established in the landmark case Barker v. Wingo, which include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and any prejudice to the defendant. In Bonar's case, the court found that while the length of the delay was significant, the reasons for the delay did not weigh heavily against the State.
The ruling has significant implications for Bonar, as it allows the State to proceed with the prosecution. The court's decision also reinforces the standards for evaluating speedy trial claims, particularly in cases with lengthy delays. While the court acknowledged the delays in Bonar's case, it ultimately concluded that the State's actions did not constitute a violation of her rights.
Looking ahead, this ruling means that Bonar's case will continue in the circuit court, where the prosecution can move forward with the charges against her. The court's decision to reverse the dismissal does not appear to leave room for an appeal by Bonar, as the ruling clarifies the legal framework surrounding her case. However, details regarding any related cases or further developments were not available in the court filing.