Redding v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Redding’s constitutional speedy-trial motion and rejected his evidentiary challenges. It held that the trial court properly applied the four-factor speedy-trial balancing test, was not required to identify specific balancing factors when admitting certain convictions under Rule 609(a)(1), and any assumed error concerning the older conviction and Rule 404(b) evidence was harmless. The court also concluded that any errors, considered cumulatively, did not deprive Redding of a fundamentally fair trial.