A Butler County Common Pleas Court judge said Friday, Jan. 31, he will rule on a motion to dismiss the homicide case against a former Cranberry Township woman charged in the February 2023 shooting of her boyfriend.

Judge Joseph Kubit said he will decide if the district attorney’s office violated Amanda Hughes’ right to a speedy trial in the Feb. 11, 2023, shooting death of Anthony D. Smith, who was 30, before jury selection is schedule to begin Tuesday, Feb. 4.

The motion to dismiss — based on Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Code’s rule of criminal procedure — was filed Friday by defense attorney Kenneth Haber. It argues that the district attorney’s office violated Hughes’ right to be tried within 365 days from the date the criminal complaint was filed.

Cranberry Township police filed the criminal complaint Feb. 13, 2023.

Hughes, 28, who now lives in Pittsburgh, is accused of shooting Smith five times in her former home on Brandywine Drive. She told police Smith attacked her and was punching her in the face and head, but she managed to get her gun and shoot him.

She called 911, went to a neighbor’s home and directed police to the gun.

Police said Hughes had bruising and swelling on the back of her right hand and a small cut and swelling under her left eye.

Haber argued that the trial was postponed several times at the request of the district attorney’s office, and the delays amount to at least 393 days.

“The obstacle has been the commonwealth,” Haber said.

Assistant district attorney Laura Pitchford countered, saying 485 days that passed since the complaint was filed are “excludable” due to continuances that were ordered by judges or requested by the defense, and 232 days are attributable to her office.

In addition, Kubit heard, but delayed ruling on, several motions filed by Pitchford.

She asked information about bullets removed from Smith’s body during the autopsy should be redacted from the autopsy report because the bullets are not related to the incident in question. She said the wounds were old and healed over, but presenting information about the bullets and wounds would be misleading and confusing to the jury and prejudicial to the prosecution.

Haber said there is no reason to redact the report because the jury won’t see it, and the knowledge of the bullets are relevant to Hughes’ state of mind at the time of the alleged shooting.

In another motion, Pitchford said information the defense intends to present about Smith’s past relationships should not be allowed to be used as evidence because it would be confusing to the jury and prejudicial to the prosecution.

Haber countered, saying that information shows Smith’s character and effected Hughes’ state of mind.

Pitchford also said defense records of hospital emergency room visits involving Hughes and Smith should not be allowed as evidence because the incidents happened between 2019 and 2022, which is well before the alleged shooting, and would be misleading and prejudicial.

Haber said the pair had been in a relationship for at least three years and the records will be used in testimony about their relationship, which he said was abusive.