it was a simple case). {15} While the complexity issue is a close call here, we agree with the district court that the delay was presumptively prejudicial. Nonetheless, we find that it falls in the high end of the simple complexity range. Even though the defense stipulated to many facts, the ultimate question of who was driving was hotly contested. Ten witnesses were needed to testify on that single question, including an accident reconstruction expert and two experts in forensic pathology. {16} We next consider the extent of the delay beyond the presumptively prejudicial period to determine whether the delay will weigh against the State, bearing in mind that the presumption of prejudice to the defendant intensifies over time. See Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 59, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (<HOLDING>). The length of delay is sixty-two days over
holding threeyear delay between indictment and arraignment caused by the serious negligence of the government presumptively prejudicial recognizing that a fivemonth delay weighs against the defendant holding that a twoyear postindictment delay presumptively prejudicial holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that the delay is presumptively prejudicial does not necessarily mean the first factor weighs against the state but requires further consideration of the extent of the delay beyond this period