State v. Bost
2021 Ohio 2190
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Jan. 14, 2012: Najla Y. Bost shot and killed Terrance Hughes; Bost admitted the shooting and claimed self‑defense.
- May 18, 2012: Licking County Prosecutor closed the investigation and declined to charge, citing insufficient evidence to disprove self‑defense.
- Dec. 27, 2018: New Licking County prosecutor obtained a murder indictment against Bost; no new physical evidence was discovered between 2012 and 2018.
- Bost moved to dismiss for preindictment delay, arguing actual prejudice from lost or unavailable evidence (Hughes’s phone/computer data, items from the bathroom scene, contemporaneous medical testing confirming injuries/brain trauma, and testimony of a deceased family witness).
- After evidentiary hearings and release of grand‑jury testimony, the trial court found actual prejudice (medical confirmation of injuries and scene items) and unjustifiable delay (state ceased active investigation in 2012 then prosecuted on the same evidence) and granted dismissal.
- The State appealed; the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bost) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for preindictment delay was proper | State argued delay did not cause actual prejudice and was not unjustifiable | Bost argued the seven‑year delay deprived her of critical evidence and witnesses, causing actual prejudice | Affirmed dismissal: court found actual prejudice and unjustifiable delay by the State |
| Actual prejudice — contemporaneous medical proof of injuries/brain injury | State contended medical evidence was speculative and Bost could have sought testing in 2012 | Bost argued lack of contemporaneous testing (after prosecutor closed case) eliminated proof of brain injury and undermined battered‑woman/self‑defense claims | Held: proven unavailability of medical confirmation constituted actual prejudice |
| Actual prejudice — Hughes’s cell phone/data | State argued phone was passcode‑locked in 2012 and any present access is speculative | Bost argued phone records could establish timeline and rebut State’s assertions | Held: unavailability conceded but speculative that locked phone could be accessed now; not shown to cause actual prejudice |
| Actual prejudice — home scene items (computer, shower curtain/rod) and deceased witness | State argued investigators collected appropriate evidence and some omissions were justifiable; Mary Bost (deceased) would be cumulative | Bost argued missing scene items prevented independent testing to rebut State’s theory and deceased witness could have corroborated battered‑woman evidence | Held: unavailability of scene items was prejudicial and bolstered claim of actual prejudice; the deceased witness alone was not shown to cause prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (preindictment‑delay due‑process standard and burden‑shifting when defendant shows actual prejudice)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (explains actual‑prejudice requirement and burden shift; defendant need not precisely state lost testimony to show prejudice)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial protections do not apply pre‑accusation; due‑process standard governs preindictment delay)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (discusses factors for assessing actual prejudice from delay)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (2015) (fades‑memory/lost‑evidence principles; actual prejudice requires specific, non‑speculative proof)
- State v. Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215 (1998) (defendant bears initial burden to prove actual prejudice from preindictment delay)