until the eleventh hour to specifically and meaningfully invoke a ruling on the speedy trial issue, we find this factor weighs only slightly in his favor. Prejudice {25} “The right to a speedy trial protects the following three interests of a criminal defendant: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 68, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To support a finding of prejudice, “the evidence [must show] a nexus between the undue delay in the case and the prejudice claimed.” Salandre, 111 N.M. at 431, 806 P.2d at 571; see State v. Grissom, 106 N.M. 555, 563, 746 P.2d 661, 669 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). {26} Defendant claims to have been prejudiced
holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice holding that where the relevance and resulting prejudice from destruction of documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist  the culpable party can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice