State v. Buis, 111 N.E.3d 854

Defendant Wendell Buis was indicted in April 2017 for possession of cocaine alleged to have occurred on February 7, 2015; indictment followed a traffic stop.
Buis moved to dismiss the indictment for unconstitutional pre‑indictment delay (≈2+ years), citing destroyed/missing evidence: cruiser‑cam video, a dispatch recording about a K‑9 unit, and the seized drug sample (already tested and later destroyed).
The State acknowledged the missing/destroyed materials, attributed the delay to a change in officers and the trooper leaving the Highway Patrol, and argued Buis showed no actual prejudice because reports, testimony, and the lab report remained.
The trial court granted dismissal, finding Buis had shown actual prejudice from the missing evidence because it could have undermined the State’s circumstantial proof (particularly the element of knowing possession).
The State appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether Buis established actual prejudice from pre‑indictment delay and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on prejudice	No; court could decide on undisputed written submissions	Hearing unnecessary only if facts undisputed	No per se duty to hold a hearing where parties did not request one and record was adequate to decide
Whether Buis demonstrated "actual prejudice" from pre‑indictment delay	The missing evidence was speculative and available testimony/reports/lab results remained	Missing cruiser‑cam, dispatch recording, and destroyed drug sample deprived ability to test or impeach State’s case	Buis failed to show actual prejudice; dismissal was error
Whether destroyed drug sample violated due process / statutory right to independent testing	Destruction prevented independent testing under R.C. 2925.51(E) and thus prejudiced defense	Sample had already tested positive; lab report and analyst remained; destruction appeared routine and not in bad faith	No due‑process violation shown; inability to retest not enough to prove actual prejudice on these facts
Whether missing recordings (cruiser‑cam, K‑9 dispatch) materially harmed defense	Missing recordings might undermine timing, detention length, and credibility of officers	Officers, police report, and a typed dispatch log remain; any prejudice is speculative	Prejudice from missing recordings is speculative; availability of witnesses and records weighs against actual prejudice

State v. Jones, 69 N.E.3d 688 (Ohio 2016) (establishes burden‑shifting framework and defines "actual prejudice" for pre‑indictment delay)
State v. Luck, 472 N.E.2d 1097 (Ohio 1984) (pre‑indictment delay may violate due process)
State v. Adams, 45 N.E.3d 127 (Ohio 2015) (addresses burdens when defendant shows prejudice from delay)
State v. Moore, 88 N.E.3d 593 (Ohio App.) (summarizes Jones framework for assessing prejudice at indictment filing)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (addresses permissible length and scope of traffic stops before extending detention for a dog sniff)
State v. Barron, 866 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio App.) (discusses that inability to retest a sample that already tested positive does not necessarily establish prejudice)