92 N.E.3d 1105
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- In November 1980 Hammond Police Officer Larry Pucalik was shot during an attempted robbery; investigation stalled and no charges were filed for years.
- James Hill was implicated early (spontaneous statement after a 1980 arrest; 1981 interview where he identified associates) but was not re-charged until a cold‑case reinvestigation beginning in 2011 produced new witness interviews (notably Jimmy Dale Woods in 2009) tying Hill to others.
- The State charged Hill in 2012 and again in 2016 (murder, murder in perpetration of robbery, Class A attempted robbery); earlier related prosecutions and post‑conviction proceedings complicated the history.
- Hill moved to dismiss the 2016 indictment on due‑process grounds for a 36‑year pre‑indictment delay, asserting prejudice because two alibi witnesses (great‑uncle James Stokes and great‑grandmother Elnoria Stokes) died in 2008 and 1996 and could not testify.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the State presented new evidence justifying the delay and that the State gained no tactical advantage; Hill sought interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals accepted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 36‑year pre‑indictment delay violated due process | Delay was supported by reinvestigation and newly obtained evidence tying suspects together; no tactical advantage gained by State | Delay deprived Hill of a fair trial because key alibi witnesses died and would have testified he was home | Denied: Hill failed to prove actual and substantial prejudice from the delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171 (Ind. 2016) (sets two‑part due‑process test for pre‑indictment delay: defendant must show actual and substantial prejudice, then lack of justification for delay)
- Barnett v. State, 867 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (twelve‑year delay found to violate due process where many witnesses were dead or unlocatable and memory had faded)
- Schiro v. State, 888 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (rejected pre‑indictment‑delay claim where defendant made speculative assertions about missing alibi witnesses without affidavits or testimony)
- United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1998) (explains defendant must show unavailable witness would have testified, withstood cross‑examination, and been credible)
- Patterson v. State, 495 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. 1986) (passage of time alone insufficient for due‑process relief; must show prejudice)
- Valenzuela‑Bernal v. United States, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1982) (recognizes that pre‑indictment delay can violate Due Process Clause)