State v. Willingham

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1892

Syllabus

Motion to dismiss for preindictment delay. In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss for preindictment delay, this court applies a de novo standard of review to the legal issues, but we afford great deference to the findings of fact made by the trial judge. The statute of limitations for a criminal offense is the defendant's primary protection against overly stale criminal charges. However, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides additional protection in cases where the preindictment delay was unjustifiable and caused actual prejudice. The Ohio Supreme Court established a burden shifting framework for analyzing a due process claim based on preindictment delay. Under this framework, the defendant bears the initial burden of presenting evidence of actual prejudice. Once a defendant presents evidence of actual prejudice, the burden shifts to the state to produce evidence of a justifiable reason for the delay. Therefore, if the defendant fails to establish actual prejudice, the court is not required to consider the reasons for the delay. A court must consider the evidence as it exists when the indictment is filed and the prejudice the defendant will suffer at trial due to the delay. A claim of actual prejudice should be scrutinized \vis à vis the particular evidence that was lost or unavailable as a result of the delay\ and \the relevance of the lost evidence and its purported effect on the defense.\ After independently considering the evidence as it existed when this indictment was filed, we find that Willingham has been prejudiced by the 17-year delay. It is clear from the record that Willingham could have been identified as early as 2004, if the rape kit had been tested. Whether through negligence or error in judgment, the police ceased to actively investigate the case, which is not a justifiable reason for delay.