With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the attorney general against the State. The State relies on State v. Wittgenstein, 1995-NMCA-010, 119 N.M. 565, 893 P.2d 461, for the proposition that delay resulting from a defendant’s own motion may not be weighed against the State. Although Wittgenstein, having addressed the delay caused by judicial review, does not stand for this proposition, we recognize the validity of the notion that the time required to respond to or hear a defendant’s motion generally does not count against the government. See id. ¶ 14 (addressing the delay caused by the defendant’s having sought collateral review of a matter in federal court); see also Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 27 (weighing neutrally the time taken to oppose pretrial motions); State v. Grissom, 1987-NMCA-123, ¶ 34, 106 N.M. 555, 746 P.2d 661 (<HOLDING>). {36} In this case, however, the district

A: holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct
B: holding that a defendants failure to assert the right to speedy trial must be weighed against him in barker analysis
C: holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated
D: recognizing that djelay arising from hearing the defendants motions not caused by the prosecution is not weighed against the prosecution in a speedy trial analysis
D.