Mark Reed v. State of Indiana
86 N.E.3d 175
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim J.D. (age 10–11 in 2001–2002) alleged Reed molested her in Grant County (Matter Park) and in vehicles; allegations disclosed to family and to a Child Advocacy Center interview in July 2008.
- A 2008 police report and Child Advocacy Center interview identified the incident in Grant County, but no prosecution ensued then; the report was sent to Monticello (White County) police and Grant County representatives attended the interview.
- The Grant County prosecutor’s office did not present charges in 2008; difficulties maintaining contact with the victim’s mother and possible jurisdictional confusion contributed to no immediate charging.
- Investigator Kay discovered the 2008 report in early 2016, reinvestigated (interviewed witnesses, took photos, obtained J.D.’s contemporaneous letter), and charges were filed in April 2016 for class A felony child molesting (two counts); one count (anal) was later dismissed by directed verdict; the jury convicted on the vaginal-finger count and found habitual offender status.
- Reed moved to dismiss for excessive pre-indictment delay (2008 report to 2016 indictment), claiming due process prejudice from faded memories and impaired defense; the trial court denied the motion and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-indictment delay violated due process | No: Reed failed to prove actual & substantial prejudice; delay had justificatory reasons (investigative/jurisdictional issues) and did not give State tactical advantage | Delay (2008–2016) impaired defense by fading witnesses’ memories and lack of follow-up investigation; no justification for delay | Denied. Court found no actual and substantial prejudice and no impermissible State motive for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiro v. State, 888 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (framework: defendant must prove actual and substantial prejudice and impermissible State motive for relief from pre-indictment delay)
- Glenn v. State, 884 N.E.2d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (delay can harm both sides; mere passage of time insufficient to establish prejudice)
- Johnson v. State, 810 N.E.2d 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (no statute of limitations for certain A-felony crimes; defendant must show prejudice and unjustified delay)
- Barnett v. State, 867 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishable example where long delay and loss/death of key witnesses caused prejudice and warranted relief)