to suppress evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained. Under the rule, Ball was therefore required to file the motion no later than forty days after arraignment. His failure to file the motion in time constituted a waiver of his constitutional objection unless there was good cause shown to grant relief from such waiver. We have found a waiver even when the State did not resist the motion as untimely and unexcused. See, e.g., State v. Terry, 569 N.W.2d 364, 368 (Iowa 1997); State v. McCowen, 297 N.W.2d 226, 227-28 (Iowa 1980). The narrow question we must decide is whether the district court correctly ruled there was good cause to grant Ball relief from the waiver under rule 10(3). Our review is for abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 160-61 (Iowa 1975) (<HOLDING>). The district court believed there was good
holding pendency of another trial constitutes good cause for delay and thus finding defendants statutory and constitutional speedy trial claims without merit holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that review of good cause determination to avoid dismissal for speedy trial purposes is abuse of discretion