With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not be prosecuting Smith, the cocaine had to be sent back to the State Crime Lab for quantitative analysis. The State then submitted the case to the next grand jury, and Smith was indicted on September 1, 2011. Smith subsequently moved to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied Smith’s motion, and Smith was tried on the indictment and convicted in February 2012. Despite the more than three year delay between Smith’s arrest and his trial, we are unable to provide proper appellate review of Smith’s speedy trial claim because neither the transcript of the hearing on Smith’s motion nor the order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment is included in the record on appeal. See Higgenbottom v. State, 288 Ga. 429, 430-431 (704 SE2d 786) (2011) (<HOLDING>). Since this Court cannot ascertain if Smith’s

A: holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds
B: holding that a 19month delay between indictment and trial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial
C: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
D: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds
A.