State v. Bush, 2020 Ohio 1229

Damon Bush was indicted for felony nonsupport on October 19, 2016; he was arrested on August 3, 2018 (about 21½ months later).
After arrest, Bush moved to dismiss the indictment (filed Dec. 4, 2018), asserting a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation.
Prosecutor investigator Margie Priestle searched databases and witnesses, supplied a Kinney Street address; sheriff’s detectives had previously tried and left notices at a Mitchell Avenue address where family members said Bush did not reside.
Deputy Knight attempted personal service at the Kinney address, left a notice, and took no further steps after no contact; Priestle periodically followed up but Bush remained at large until arrest.
The trial court found the state made reasonable efforts to locate Bush, that Bush suffered no actual prejudice from the delay, denied the motion to dismiss, and, after a no-contest plea, convicted him of nonsupport.
On appeal, Bush argued the 21½-month delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial; the First District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 21½-month delay from indictment to arrest violated Bush’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial	State: prosecutors and sheriff reasonably pursued Bush; delay resulted from diligence in locating him and was not deliberate; no actual prejudice shown	Bush: delay was presumptively prejudicial and violated speedy-trial right because it exceeded one year	Court: applied Barker factors; length and reason slightly favored Bush but assertion and lack of prejudice favored State; no actual prejudice shown and diligence was adequate, so no constitutional violation; conviction affirmed

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (presumptive prejudice and importance of government diligence in delay analysis)
Marion v. United States, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (speedy-trial right triggered by indictment or other official accusation)
Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2016) (clarifies triggering events for speedy-trial protections)
State v. Triplett, 78 Ohio St.3d 566 (Ohio 1997) (delay without knowledge of indictment may weigh negligibly for defendant)
State v. Selvage, 80 Ohio St.3d 465 (Ohio 1997) (discusses Barker application under Ohio law)
State v. Sears, 166 Ohio App.3d 166 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (presumed prejudice where state made little or no effort to notify defendant of complaint)