Billingslea v. State
311 Ga. App. 490
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- In October 2002, four women were robbed at a beauty salon by two gunmen; one wore a mask.
- An arrest warrant for Billingslea was issued in November 2002 and he was arrested in January 2009.
- Billingslea was indicted on four counts of armed robbery and released on bond in February 2009.
- Motions were filed in 2009–2010, including suppression of pretrial identifications and alibi notices; latent fingerprints were ordered for lab comparison.
- A crime-lab comparison of latent prints occurred but some sets were missing or not suitable, and some witnesses could not be located or recalled.
- Billingslea argued the six-plus year delay violated due process due to prejudice and loss of key evidence and witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-arrest delay can violate due process. | Billingslea contends delay caused prejudice. | State argues statute of limitations protects against stale charges. | No due process violation found; seven-year limit satisfied. |
| Whether the delay caused actual prejudice to Billingslea's defense. | Loss of latent fingerprints and witness impeded defense. | Prejudice not shown; fingerprint loss would not prove presence or absence reliably. | No actual prejudice established. |
| Whether the State deliberately delayed arrest to gain a tactical advantage. | State delayed arrest to strengthen case. | Delay was to locate him, not to gain advantage. | No deliberate tactical delay proved. |
| Whether the aggravating factors of missing evidence and a missing witness alter the outcome. | Evidence loss and witness unavailability prejudiced defense. | Circumstances insufficient to deny due process. | Not sufficient to reverse; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (pre-arrest delay may implicate due process; statute of limitations main safeguard)
- State v. Madden, 242 Ga. 637 (1978) (speculation about alibi insufficient to show prejudice)
- Holton v. State, 280 Ga. 843 (2006) (loss of evidence does not automatically prejudice defense)
- Jackson v. State, 279 Ga. 449 (2005) (no due process violation when no prejudice or tactical advantage shown)
- Wooten v. State, 262 Ga. 876 (1993) (pre-arrest delay analysis requires prejudice and deliberate purpose)
- Brewington v. State, 288 Ga. 520 (2011) (speedy-trial considerations; pre-arrest context discussed)